Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
30 U.S. 1; 5 Pet. 1 (1831)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An Indian tribe residing within the territorial boundaries of the United States is not a 'foreign state' within the meaning of Article III of the Constitution. Therefore, such a tribe cannot sue a state in the U.S. Supreme Court under the Court's original jurisdiction for controversies between a state and a foreign state.
Facts:
- The Cherokee Nation was a self-governing political society that had long occupied territory to which they claimed title.
- The United States, through numerous solemn treaties, had recognized the Cherokee Nation as a distinct political entity and guaranteed its right to its lands.
- The State of Georgia enacted a series of laws intended to extend its jurisdiction over the Cherokee territory.
- These Georgia laws purported to nullify all Cherokee laws, prohibit the exercise of self-government by the Cherokee, and seize their lands for distribution among Georgia citizens.
- Georgia began to enforce these laws, which the Cherokee Nation alleged were designed to annihilate its existence as a political society.
Procedural Posture:
- The Cherokee Nation filed a bill of complaint directly in the Supreme Court of the United States, invoking the Court's original jurisdiction.
- The plaintiff, the Cherokee Nation, sought an injunction to restrain the defendant, the State of Georgia, from executing certain state laws within Cherokee territory.
- The case came before the Supreme Court on the plaintiff's motion for this injunction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Indian tribe, such as the Cherokee Nation, constitute a 'foreign state' under Article III of the Constitution, granting the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to hear a case brought by the tribe against a state?
Opinions:
Majority - Marshall, Ch. J.
No, an Indian tribe is not a 'foreign state' in the sense of the Constitution and cannot maintain an action in the courts of the United States. While the Cherokee Nation is a distinct political society, or a 'state,' capable of self-government, its relationship to the United States is unique and not that of a foreign nation. Indian tribes are more correctly denominated 'domestic dependent nations' whose relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian. The Constitution itself distinguishes between 'foreign nations' and 'Indian tribes' in the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8), indicating the framers did not consider them to be the same. Because the Cherokee Nation is not a 'foreign state,' the Supreme Court lacks the original jurisdiction under Article III to hear this suit.
Dissenting - Thompson, J.
Yes, the Cherokee Nation is a 'foreign state' within the meaning of the Constitution. A foreign state is one that governs itself under its own authority and laws, without dependence on a foreign power. The Cherokee Nation meets this definition, as it has always been treated as a sovereign entity by the United States through formal treaties. The term 'foreign' relates to political separation and jurisdiction, not geographical location. Since the United States' political branches have consistently recognized the Cherokees as a state capable of making treaties, the judiciary should also recognize them as a foreign state competent to sue in federal court. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction and should grant relief against Georgia's laws, which plainly violate federal treaties.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established the unique legal status of Native American tribes as 'domestic dependent nations.' While the ruling was a jurisdictional defeat for the Cherokee Nation, it paradoxically affirmed their status as distinct political communities with rights to land and self-governance, albeit in a dependent relationship with the federal government. This framework of tribal sovereignty, subordinate only to the federal government (not the states), became a cornerstone of federal Indian law. The case also highlighted the limits of judicial power, foreshadowing the political question doctrine and setting the stage for the subsequent, more definitive ruling on tribal sovereignty in Worcester v. Georgia.
Unlock the full brief for Cherokee Nation v. Georgia