Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823)

Facts:

Plaintiff Thomas Johnson bought land from the Piankeshaw Nation in the late 18th century.  Subsequently, the defendant William M’Intosh obtained a title to the same parcel of land from the United States Government.  Johnson sued M’Intosh in the U.S. District Court of Illinois to recover the title to the land granted M’Intosh by the U.S. and his case was dismissed.  The district court dismissed the suit on the grounds that only the U.S. government could convey title to the parcel of land in question.

Issues:

Are land transfers from Indian Nations to private individuals legal?

Holding:

No, transfers of land from Indian Nations to private individuals are illegal because only the U.S. government can legally acquire lands from Indian Nations.

Reasoning:

In his majority opinion Chief Justice John Marshall underscores the importance of the discovery doctrine in discerning the legality of Johnson’s title.  He writes, “discovery gave title to the government” and that discovery gave “the sole right of acquiring the soil from natives” to the U.S. government after title was transferred from the Royal Crown.  As a result, “[native’s] power to dispose of the soil at their own will, to whomsoever they pleased, was denied by the original fundamental principle” of discovery.  He further explains that because of discovery the rights of Indian Nations were “necessarily diminished” and “that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it.”  Therefore, Johnson’s title was not valid as the Piankeshaw Nation are only afforded “the right of occupancy” and not ownership of the land.

Historical Significance:

Chief Justice John Marshall’s majority opinion in Johnson v M’Intosh is considered one of the most important legal cases in United States history.  Specifically, the decision codified the “right of occupancy” as the only right to which Indian Nations were entitled as regards their indigenous lands.  This has informed decisions for two hundred years in American Indian law, working to divest Indian Nations of their indigenous lands at the lowest prices possible, to enshrine the principles of Christian supremacy over American Indians in Constitutional law, and to subordinate the sovereign rights of Indian Nations in matters of taxation, self-governance, and cultural prerogatives. At the same time Chief Justice Marshall underscored the notion of colonial versus Constitutional law, setting a precedent for later decisions that would allow his court to define the government-to-government relationship more broadly between Indian Nations and the U.S.  The case remains controversial in United States Indian law today.

References

D'Errico, Peter. "John Marshal: Indian Lover?" Journal of the West. vol. 39, ed. 3. 2000.