Why was Worcester v. Georgia one of the most important US Supreme Court cases of the Jacksonian era?

Answer 1

Worcester v. Georgia was part of what has become known as the "Indian Trilogy," a series of cases involving Native American rights that were reviewed by the Marshall Court during Andrew Jackson's Presidency.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832) addressed a Georgia law requiring whites living in Cherokee territory to obtain a permit from the state. When seven missionaries refused to follow the law, the state of Georgia convicted and sentenced them to four years hard labor. The missionaries believed the state had targeted them because of their support of the Cherokee against Georgia's attempt to drive the Native Americans from the state, a goal established in 1828 when Georgia passed laws stripping the Cherokee of their rights (see Related Links, below, for more information). It was generally understood that had they applied for the permits, they would have been denied.

When the appeal reached the Supreme Court, the Court stated the United States relationship to the Cherokee was that of two separate nations, with the Native Americans declared a "denominated domestic dependent nation." This gave the federal government the sole right of negotiation with the Native American nations, and barred Georgia from taking action against them. The Cherokee Nation's dependency on the US created both an implied (by status) and stated (by Chief justice Marshall) obligation to protect the Cherokee from Georgia, an action the federal government declined to take. Chief Justice John Marshall further opined that the government did not have the right of possession of Native American land, nor dominion over their laws, short of military conquest or legal purchase.

This ruling contradicted an earlier decision of the Marshall Court in Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), in which the Justices unanimously decided the United States owned all Native American-occupied land by virtue of the "Discovery Doctrine," a remnant of European law that states land belongs to whomever "discovers" it. The Court's theory was the United States had assumed Britain's title to the land, and the Native Americans' status was that of tenant.

In Johnson, members of the Piankeshaw tribe (part of the Miami Nation) sold a plot of land to the Johnson family in 1773, and the soon-to-be US government sold the same plot to the M'Intosh family in 1775. Johnson, the plaintiff, asserted he had a prior claim to the land, and tried to have M'Intosh evicted. In the Court's opinion, the Piankeshaw sale was invalidated by the "Discovery Doctrine," so they awarded title to the defendant.

Implicit in this practice was the idea, acknowledged by Marshall, that Native Americans were "...an inferior race of people, without the privileges of citizens, and under the perpetual protection and pupilage of the government."

The adverse ruling in Worcester v. Georgia countered the interests of the state and federal governments. Jackson was a staunch proponent of Indian removal because, in his view, the Indian land was a valuable commodity, and their occupation stood in the way of progress. The United States had already appropriated more than 22 million acres of land from the Creek (1814) and Seminole (1818) nations by use of military force. The earlier Johnson ruling validated this practice, while the Worcester ruling seemed to condemn it, supporting, instead, Native American rights.

Popular folklore alleges that President Jackson's response to the Worcester decision was, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" According to Paul Boller's book, They Never Said It: A Book of False Quotes, Misquotes, & False Attributions, however, what Jackson actually said was, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," meaning the Court's opinion was moot because it had no power to enforce its edict (not being a legislative body).

Despite the Court's expressed opinion about the United States' duty to protect the Cherokee, the only legal rulings in the case were against Georgia. Under pressure from President Jackson, the Governor of Georgia complied with the order to release the plaintiffs, but ignored the opinion about the state's lack of rights with regard to both the Cherokee and their territory. The President declined to intervene.

Jackson continued to support Georgia in its mission to drive the Native Americans from their land, and successfully hobbled Marshall by nominating like-minded Associate Justices to vacancies on the then seven-member court. By politicizing the Court, Jackson subverted its power as one of the checks and balances on the Executive and Legislative branches.

The sad conclusion to this story was the 1836 ratification of a removal treaty with the Cherokee Nation, the Treaty of New Echota. This resulted in the US Army forcibly relocating the Native Americans from their ancestral land under the Van Buren administration in 1838, a travesty later known as The Trail of Tears.

More Information

The Worcester case is highly significant in that it constituted a striking departure from the Supreme Court's earlier treatment of claims involving Native Americans. The majority opinion was in stark contrast to John Marshall's previous opinion in Johnson v. M'Intosh, where the Court held that the United States had the right to the title of the land within its boundaries, and that the Native Americans were but residents. It also differed significantly from Marshall's opinion in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, where the Court willingly ceded its jurisdiction over matters involving native tribes. However, the outcome that was apparently favorable to the claims of the Cherokee was precluded by a hostile Congress and the equally hostile President Andrew Jackson.

It said the Cherokee Nation was subject to US Federal Laws, but not state laws. This was widely viewed as side-stepping the question of Indian rights, because subsequent US treaties repeatedly disenfranchised the Native Americans and appropriated their lands. However, the limitation of state restrictions on recognized Tribal Nations continues to the present day. (e.g. legalized gambling on reservations)

Case Citation:

Worcester v. Georgia, 31 US 515 (1832)

Answer 2

The Worcester case is highly significant in that it constituted a striking departure from the Supreme Court's earlier treatment of claims involving Native Americans. The majority opinion was in stark contrast to John Marshall's previous opinion in Johnson v. M'Intosh, where the Court held that the United States had the right to the title of the land within its boundaries, and that the Native Americans were but residents. It also differed significantly from Marshall's opinion in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, where the Court willingly ceded its jurisdiction over matters involving native tribes. However, the outcome that was apparently favorable to the claims of the Cherokee was precluded by a hostile Congress and the equally hostile President Andrew Jackson.

It said the Cherokee Nation was subject to US federal laws, but not state laws. This was widely viewed as side-stepping the question of Indian rights, because subsequent US treaties repeatedly disenfranchised the Native Americans and appropriated their lands. However, the limitation of state restrictions on recognized Tribal Nations continues to the present day. (e.g. legalized gambling on reservations)

Case Citation:

Worcester v. Georgia, 31 US 515 (1832)