- Worcester v. Georgia
SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Worcester v. Georgia
ArgueDate=February 20
ArgueYear=1832
DecideDate=March 3
DecideYear=1832
FullName=Samuel A. Worcester, Plaintiff in Error v. The State of Georgia
USVol=31
USPage=515
Citation=8 L. Ed. 483
Prior=Plaintiff convicted in Gwinnett County, Georgia by the Georgia Superior Court (Sept. 15, 1831)
Subsequent=None
Holding=States were not permitted to redraw the boundaries of Indian lands or forbid residence in those territories, because the Constitution granted sole authority to Congress to regulate relations with sovereign Indian tribes. Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia reversed and remanded.
SCOTUS=1830-1834
Majority=Marshall
JoinMajority=Johnson, Duvall, Story, Thompson
Concurrence=McLean
Dissent=Baldwin
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. art. I"Worcester v. Georgia", 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (
1832 ), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held thatCherokee Native Americans were entitled to federal protection from the actions of state governments which would infringe on the tribe'ssovereignty . It is considered one of the most influential decisions in law dealing with Native Americans.Background
The "Worcester v. Georgia" case is highly significant in that it constituted a striking departure from the Supreme Court's earlier treatment of claims involving Indians. 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 Indians 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 Indian tribes. [Marshall concluded his opinion by remarking that "If it be true that the Cherokee nation have rights, this is not the tribunal in which those rights are to be asserted. If it be true that wrongs have been inflicted, and still greater are to be apprehended, this is not the tribunal which can redress the past or prevent the future." ("See" ussc|30|1|1831 at 20.) As Swindler suggests, Marshall’s explicit refusal to permit the Court to become entangled in Indian matters and to thus thrust itself into the middle of the political and social turmoil that resolved around the issue at that time can only be explained by Marshall’s concern with "avoiding, even if only postponing, the ultimate political issue." "See" cite journal |last=Swindler |first=William F. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1975 |month= |title=Politics as Law: The Cherokee Cases |journal=American Indian Legal Review |volume=3 |issue= |pages=6 |id= |url= |accessdate= |quote= At p. 13.] However, the judicial outcome that was apparently favorable to the claims of the Cherokee was subsequently precluded by a hostile Congress and the equally hostile PresidentAndrew Jackson .The Case
Georgia law required all whites living in Cherokee Indian Territory to obtain a state license. Seven missionaries refused to obey the state law and were arrested, convicted, and sentenced to four years of hard labor for violating the state licensing law. They also refused to obey the military when they were asked to leave the state. They appealed their case to the Supreme Court of the United States, arguing that the laws they had been convicted under were unconstitutional because states have no power or authority to pass laws concerning sovereign Indian Nations.
The missionaries Samuel Austin Worcester and Elizur Butler were targeted by Georgia because of their influence with and support of Cherokee resistance against removal. It was understood that had they applied for state licenses to reside among the
Cherokees , the licenses would have been denied. The Georgia state courts had previously been deferential to Worcester because of his federal appointment as postmaster toNew Echota , the Cherokee capital. However, the governor of Georgia,George Rockingham Gilmer , personally persuaded the federal government to withdraw Worcester's appointment as postmaster in order to make him subject to arrest.Chief Justice Marshall lays out in this opinion the relationship between the Indian nations and the United States is that of nations. He argues that the United States, in the character of the federal government, inherited the rights of Great Britain as they were held by that nation. Those rights, he states, are the sole right of dealing with the Indian nations to the exclusion of any other European power, and not the rights of possession to their land nor political dominion over their laws. He acknowledges that the exercise of conquest and purchase can give political dominion, but those are in the hands of the federal government and not the states.
The court ruled that the Cherokee nation was a "distinct community" with self-government "in which the laws of Georgia can have no force," establishing the doctrine that the national government of the United States, and not individual states, had authority in Indian affairs.
Response to the Decision
In reaction to this decision, President Andrew Jackson has often been quoted as defying the Supreme Court with the words: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" Arguably because of a legal loophole, he had no grounds for becoming involved unless the Georgia courts formally defied the Supreme Court. That did not happen since Georgia simply ignored the ruling and refused to release Worcester from prison. What Jackson actually said was that "the decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." Jackson's opponents criticized him for failing to act against Georgia, but even if he had wanted to intervene—and he did not—it is questionable whether he had any legal authority to do so.Prucha (1984), p. 212.]
Perhaps fearing the possibility of a showdown between the Supreme Court and the Executive, and realizing the real likelihood of Jackson refusing to adhere to the Court’s pro-Cherokee decision, the Justices did not follow the standard procedure of requiring federal marshals to carry out the decision.cite journal |last=Berutti |first=Ronald A. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1992 |month= |title=The Cherokee Cases: The Fight to Save the Supreme Court and the Cherokee Indians |journal=American Indian Law Review |volume=17 |issue= |pages=291 |id= |url= |accessdate= |quote= At pp. 305–306.] In doing so, the Supreme Court implicitly permitted Andrew Jackson not to carry out the decision, thus avoiding the possibility of a political conflict between two branches, while also retaining the pro-Cherokee decision of "Worcester" as good precedent for subsequent cases and presidents.cite journal |last=Lytle |first=Cliford M. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1980 |month= |title=The Supreme Court, Tribal Sovereignty, and Continuing Problems of State Encroachment into Indian Country |journal=American Indian Law Review |volume=8 |issue= |pages=65 |id= |url= |accessdate= |quote= At p. 69.]
There can be no question that Jackson was politically supportive of Georgia in its efforts to relocate the Cherokees. Despite winning their case in the Supreme Court, Worcester and Butler remained imprisoned until 1833, when a new governor,
Wilson Lumpkin , persuaded them to acceptpardons on condition that they would have nothing further to do with the Cherokees. Worcester and Butler were reluctant to accept pardons under such a condition but were eventually pressured to do so by the combined efforts of their lawyers, their missionary organization, and Governor Lumpkin.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
