Worcester v. Georgia
|Worcester v. Georgia|
|Argued February 20, 1832
Decided March 3, 1832
|Full case name||Samuel A. Worcester v. Georgia|
|Citations||31 U.S. 515 (more)
8 L. Ed. 483
|Prior history||Plaintiff convicted in Gwinnett County, Georgia by the Georgia Superior Court (September 15, 1831)|
|Worcester's conviction is void, because states have no criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country.|
|Majority||Marshall, joined by Johnson, Duvall, Story, Thompson|
|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 vacated the conviction of Samuel Worcester and held that the Georgia criminal statute that prohibited non-Native Americans from being present on Native American lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional.
The opinion is most famous for its dicta, which laid out the relationship between tribes and the state and federal governments, stating that the federal government was the sole authority to deal with Indian nations. It is considered to have built the foundations of the doctrine of tribal sovereignty in the United States.
Chief Justice John Marshall laid out in this opinion that the relationship between the Indian Nations and the United States is that of nations. He argued 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 stated, include the sole right to deal with the Indian nations in North America, to the exclusion of any other European power. This did not include the rights of possession to their land or political dominion over their laws. He acknowledged that the exercise of conquest and purchase can give political dominion, but those are in the hands of the federal government and not in the hands of the individual states.
The court ruled that the individual states had no authority in American Indian affairs.
In a popular quotation that is believed to be apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" This derives from Jackson's comments on the case in a letter to John Coffee, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," (that is, the Court's opinion because it had no power to enforce its edict).
The ruling in Worcester ordered that Worcester be freed, and Georgia complied after several months. In 1833, the newly elected governor, Wilson Lumpkin, offered to pardon Worcester and Butler if they ceased their activities among the Cherokee. The two complied and were freed (under the authority of a January 14, 1833 general proclamation, not a formal pardon). They never returned to Cherokee land.
The federal government and the Cherokee were not party to the suit. Worcester imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce. The Court did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision, as had become standard. Worcester may be seen as a prudential decision, for avoiding the possibility of political conflict between the Court and the Executive, while still delivering what appeared to be a pro-Indian decision.
As a tribal sovereignty precedent
Marshall's language in Worcester may have been motivated by his regret that his earlier opinions in Fletcher and Johnson had been used as a justification for Georgia's actions. Justice Story considered it similarly, writing in a letter to his wife dated March 4, 1832: "Thanks be to God, the Court can wash their hands clean of the iniquity of oppressing the Indians and disregarding their rights." Because Jackson proceeded with Cherokee removal, Worcester did not aid indigenous rights at the time.
Worcester has been cited in several later opinions on the subject of tribal sovereignty in the United States.
- Boller, Paul F.; John H. George (1989). They Never Said It: A Book of False Quotes, Misquotes, & False Attributions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0-19-506469-8.
- Chused, 1999.
- Banner, 2005, pp. 218—24.
- Norgren, 2004, pp. 122—30.
- Berutti, 1992, pp. 305—06.
- Lytle, 1980, p. 69.
- Warren, 1926, l.757.
- Stuart Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land: Law and Power on the Frontier, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.
- Berutti, Ronald A. (1992). "The Cherokee Cases: The Fight to Save the Supreme Court and the Cherokee Indians". American Indian Law Review 17 (1): 291–308. doi:10.2307/20068726.
- Burke, Joseph C. (1969). "The Cherokee Cases: A Study in Law, Politics, and Morality". Stanford Law Review (Stanford Law Review, Vol. 21, No. 3) 21 (3): 500–531. doi:10.2307/1227621. JSTOR 1227621.
- Chused, Richard (1999). Cases, Materials, and Problems in Property (2nd ed.). New York: M. Bender. ISBN 0-8205-4135-4.
- Lytle, Cliford M. (1980). "The Supreme Court, Tribal Sovereignty, and Continuing Problems of State Encroachment into Indian Country". American Indian Law Review 8 (1): 65–77. doi:10.2307/20068139.
- Jill Norgren, The Cherokee Cases: Two Landmark Federal Decisions in the Fight for Sovereignty (2004).
- Prucha, Francis Paul (1984). The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians I. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0-8032-3668-9.
- Lindsay G. Robertson, Conquest by Law: How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of Their Lands (2005).
- Smith, Jean Edward (1996). John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation. New York: Henry Holt & Company. ISBN 0-8050-1389-X.
- Charles Warren. The Supreme Court in United States History, (2d. ed., 1926). 2 vols.