2.4 Key Supreme Court Decisions Shaping Tribal Sovereignty

The Supreme Court has shaped tribal sovereignty through landmark decisions spanning two centuries. These rulings have defined tribes' status, powers, and relationship with the federal government, setting the stage for modern tribal governance.

Key cases like Johnson v. M'Intosh and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia established foundational principles of federal Indian law. Later decisions refined tribal jurisdiction and authority, balancing sovereignty with federal oversight and state interests.

Early 19th Century Cases Establishing Tribal Sovereignty

Foundations of Federal Indian Law

Top images from around the web for Foundations of Federal Indian Law

• 

  Johnson v. M'Intosh - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Johnson v. McIntosh - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  What's tribal sovereignty and what does it mean for Native Americans? View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Johnson v. M'Intosh - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Johnson v. McIntosh - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Foundations of Federal Indian Law

• 

  Johnson v. M'Intosh - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Johnson v. McIntosh - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  What's tribal sovereignty and what does it mean for Native Americans? View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Johnson v. M'Intosh - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Johnson v. McIntosh - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) established the doctrine of discovery granted European nations land title in America
• Ruling affirmed only the federal government could purchase Native American lands
• Decision created the concept of aboriginal title limiting tribal rights to land occupancy and use
• Case laid groundwork for future federal-tribal relations and land ownership disputes

Defining Tribal Status and Federal Responsibility

• Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) addressed whether Indian tribes were foreign nations under the Constitution
• Supreme Court ruled tribes were "domestic dependent nations" existing as distinct political communities
• Decision established trust relationship between federal government and tribes
• Ruling recognized tribes as wards of the nation entitled to federal protection

Affirming Tribal Sovereignty and Limiting State Power

• Worcester v. Georgia (1832) challenged Georgia's attempt to extend state laws over Cherokee territory
• Supreme Court ruled state laws had no force within tribal boundaries
• Decision affirmed tribes as distinct political entities with inherent powers of self-government
• Ruling established basis for tribal sovereignty and federal preemption in Indian affairs

Late 19th Century Case Limiting Federal Jurisdiction

Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction and Federal Intervention

• Ex parte Crow Dog (1883) involved murder of one Sioux man by another on reservation
• Supreme Court ruled federal courts lacked jurisdiction over crimes between Native Americans on tribal lands
• Decision recognized tribal authority to handle internal criminal matters
• Ruling led to passage of Major Crimes Act (1885) extending federal jurisdiction over serious crimes on reservations
• Case highlighted tensions between tribal sovereignty and federal oversight in criminal justice

Late 20th Century Cases Refining Tribal Jurisdiction

Limitations on Tribal Criminal Authority

• Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) addressed tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians on reservation
• Supreme Court ruled tribes lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians without congressional authorization
• Decision based on tribes' dependent status and incorporation into the United States
• Ruling significantly limited tribal authority in law enforcement and criminal prosecution

Dual Sovereignty Doctrine in Tribal Context

• United States v. Wheeler (1978) involved double jeopardy question for tribal and federal prosecutions
• Supreme Court held tribes retain inherent sovereign power to try tribal members for tribal offenses
• Ruling affirmed tribal courts and federal courts are separate sovereigns for double jeopardy purposes
• Decision recognized tribes' retained powers of self-government not delegated by Congress

Civil Regulatory Authority on Reservation Lands

• Montana v. United States (1981) addressed Crow Tribe's authority to regulate non-Indian hunting on reservation
• Supreme Court established general principle that tribes lack civil authority over non-Indians on non-Indian fee lands
• Ruling created two exceptions allowing tribal civil jurisdiction over non-Indians in specific circumstances
• Decision significantly impacted tribal civil regulatory and adjudicatory authority within reservation boundaries

21st Century Case Upholding Tribal Sovereignty

Reaffirmation of Treaty Rights and Reservation Boundaries

• McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) addressed whether Creek Reservation in Oklahoma remained "Indian country"
• Supreme Court ruled Congress never disestablished the Creek Reservation despite Oklahoma statehood
• Decision affirmed continued existence of Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation boundaries
• Ruling had significant implications for criminal jurisdiction and tribal sovereignty in eastern Oklahoma
• Case demonstrated enduring nature of tribal treaty rights and reservation status