Worcester v Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Peters) 515 (1832)

Facts:

In 1831 Samuel A. Worcester, a missionary, was convicted in Georgia of violating laws “for residing…in... the Cherokee Nation…without a license or permit from the Governor of the State” and sentenced to four years of hard labor in a penitentiary.  Worcester sued the State of Georgia claiming that in his capacity as a citizen of the U.S. from the State of Vermont and based on the language of treaties with the Cherokee Nation, that the State of Georgia had no authority to impose such an onerous law on him and that his conviction should be overturned.

Issues:

Does the State of Georgia have the authority to make laws regulating “the whole intercourse” between citizens of the Cherokee Nation and citizens of Georgia?

Holding:

No, the State of Georgia cannot enact laws that regulate “intercourse between the United States and [the Cherokee] Nation.”

Reasoning:

Chief Justice Marshall in his majority opinion stated that Indian nations are “considered as distinct, independent political communities,” and noted that “the Cherokee nation…is a distinct community, occupying its own territory…in which the laws of Georgia can have no force.”  Justice Marshall declared that Samuel Worcester was convicted “under colour of a law which is void, as being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States.”

Historical Significance:

The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Worcester v Georgia was to establish, for the first time, Indian nations as “political communities.”  As a result of this ruling and the conferring of the unprecedented status as “distinct” communities, Indian nations would be able to legally sue for damages in Federal Court and petition the executive for action or redress.  As Cherokee Nation Principal Chief John Ross wrote his attorney after reading the verdict, “I sincerely believe that a foundation is laid upon which our injured rights may be reared & made permanent.”

Chief Justice Marshall was able to advance his efforts to codify Indian nations’ status as distinct entities in order that they remain uniformly under the authority of the Federal government.  Justice Marshall wrote that the “treaties and laws of the United States contemplate the Indian territory as completely separated from that of the states,” outlawing further encroachment of Georgia state laws into Indian territory.  Although the executive branch and some State governments ignored the ruling, ushering in an era of removal and allotment for Native Americans, the status afforded Indian Nations in Worcester v Georgia has formed the foundation for the broadening of Indian sovereignty seen in the courts and at the executive level over the past several decades.

References

Norgren, Jill. The Cherokee Cases: Two Landmark Federal Decisions in the Fight for Sovereignty. Norman, Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press. 2004.