Why did Worcester v Georgia not allow the Cherokee to keep their land?

Answer 1

Worcester v. Georgia, (1832) had nothing to do with whether the Cherokee could keep their land. The case 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, they were convicted and sentenced to four years hard labor.

The Supreme Court never had a valid opportunity to rule on a case determining whether the Cherokee could keep their land. Chief Justice John Marshall's written opinion that the federal government had an obligation to protect the Native Americans was not part of the legal ruling; it was simply his personal opinion.

More Information

In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 US 1 (1831), the Cherokee petitioned the US Supreme Court for an injunction against the state of Georgia, to prevent them from annexing the Nation's land. The Court determined it didn't have original jurisdiction to hear the matter because it ruled the Cherokee Nation was not a state but a "denominated domestic dependent nation." As such, only the federal government had the right to negotiate with them, and owed the Native Americans a duty of protection against the state of Georgia, due to their dependent status. While this set precedent establishing Native American Nations' relationship to state and federal government, it only created a moral, not legal, obligation for the United States, because the US wasn't party to the suit. The injunction was denied, and the case dismissed.

Chief Justice Marshall told John Ross to refile the case in a lower court, but this never happened.

in Worcester v. Georgia, 31 US 515 (1832), the Court held that Georgia had no right to pass laws regarding use of Native American land, and ordered the Governor to release missionaries (Worcester, et al.) imprisoned for violating a state law passed in 1828 requiring whites to purchase a permit in order to live on Cherokee land. Georgia complied with the Supreme Court decision, but only because President Jackson applied pressure on Georgia's Governor to pardon the missionaries.

Chief Justice Marshall explicitly stated Georgia had no legal claim to the land because the rights had passed from England to the federal government following the Revolutionary War, giving the federal government sole right to negotiate with the Cherokee. While Marshall again expressed a belief that the United States should protect the Cherokee from hostile state action, the Court couldn't rule the Cherokee could keep their land for two reasons:

1. The United States was not party to the suit in Worcester v. Georgia, and not obligated to abide by Marshall's literal opinion, no matter how forcefully he stated it.
2. The Court didn't have jurisdiction to rule on the eviction issue, because the question wasn't raised in the case.

While both cases are historically important, they only applied to Georgia; neither prevented the United States from acting to relocate the Cherokee. The federal government accomplished this mission via the Treaty of New Echota, a removal agreement offering the Nation $5 million and land in Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma) in exchange for their ancestral Southern land.

John Ross, elected leader of the Cherokee Nation never signed the Treaty; however, a small faction within the Nation, The Ridge Party (named for Major Ridge, who engineered the transaction), endorsed it, collected the money, and moved. The Ridge Party signatories weren't elected representatives of the tribe, and broke Cherokee law when acting as their agent, but Congress proceeded as though the agreement was valid. John Ross protested to Congress, but was ignored.

The dispute over the Treaty of New Echota was never presented to the US Supreme Court, so they had no way to intervene on the Native Americans' behalf.

Answer 2

Because Cherokee territory is sovereign territory outside of the state's jurisdiction.