Worcester v. Georgia: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Danedouard00 (talk | contribs) fixed wikilink |
||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
| U.S. Const. art. I |
| U.S. Const. art. I |
||
|} |
|} |
||
'''''Worcester v. Georgia''''', {{ussc|31|515|[[1832]]}}, was a case in which the [[Supreme |
'''''Worcester v. Georgia''''', {{ussc|31|515|[[1832]]}}, was a case in which the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] held that [[Cherokee]] Native Americans were entitled to federal protection from the actions of state governments which would impinge on the tribe's sovereignty. |
||
==Background== |
==Background== |
||
Revision as of 20:05, 11 March 2007
| Worcester v. Georgia | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | ||||||||
| March 3, 1832 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| 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. | ||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||
| U.S. Const. art. I |
Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that Cherokee Native Americans were entitled to federal protection from the actions of state governments which would impinge on the tribe's sovereignty.
Background
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 here lies in stark contrast to the John Marshall 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 differs significantly from the Marshall opinion in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, where the Court willingly ceded its jurisdiction over matters involving native tribes.[1] 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.
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, were arrested, convicted, and sentenced to four years of hard labor for violating the state licensing law. 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 to New Echota, the Cherokee capital. George Rockingham Gilmer, then governor of Georgia, personally persuaded the federal government to withdraw Worcester's appointment as postmaster and make him subject to arrest.
Worcester is considered one of the most influential decisions in the area of law applicable to American Indians. The Marshall court had previously ruled in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia that Indian tribes in the United States did not have the status of foreign nations (famously describing them as "domestic dependent nations"); here the court ruled that the Cherokee nation was a "distinct community" with self-government "in which the laws of Georgia can have no force". This ruling established 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, 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.[2] 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 Supreme Courts and subsequent presidents.[3]
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 accept pardons 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.
According to Richard Chused in Cases, Materials, and Problems in Property (1999), Worcester and Butler did return to the Cherokees. Further, they never accepted a formal pardon and they were not given one. Rather, they were released on a general proclamation issued in January 14, 1833.
Subsequent history
In 1835, a dissident faction of Cherokees signed a removal treaty, the Treaty of New Echota. Jackson actively lobbied the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty in 1836, where it passed by one vote. This led, in 1838 under President Martin Van Buren, to the forcible relocation by the U.S. Army of the Cherokees to Indian Territory (part of present-day Oklahoma) in what would become known as the Trail of Tears.
References
- ^ 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 that still greater are to be apprehended, this is not the tribunal which can redress the past or prevent the future." (See 30 U.S. 1 (1831) at 20.) As Swindler suggests, Marshall’s explicit refusal to permit the Court to become entangled in Native American 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" (Swindler, William F., Politics as Law: The Cherokee Cases, 3 American Indian Legal Review 6 (1975), at 13).
- ^ See Berutti, Ronald A., The Cherokee Cases: The Fight to Save the Supreme Court and the Cherokee Indians, 17 American Indian Law Review 291 (1992), at 305-306.
- ^ Lytle, Cliford M., The Supreme Court, Tribal Sovereignty, and Continuing Problems of State Encroachment into Indian Country, 8 American Indian Law Review 65 (1980), at 69.
- Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians, volume I. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984.
- Jean Edward Smith. John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996.
- Burke, "The Cherokee Cases: A Study in Law, Politics, and Morality," 21 Stan.L.Rev. 500 (1969).