Worcester v. Georgia
31 U.S. 515 (6 Pet. 515) (1832)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State laws that interfere with the federal government's exclusive authority to regulate relations with Native American tribes, as established through treaties and federal statutes, are unconstitutional and void. Native American nations are distinct, sovereign political communities whose territorial boundaries and rights of self-government are guaranteed by federal law.
Facts:
- Samuel Worcester was a citizen of Vermont and a federally authorized Christian missionary to the Cherokee Nation.
- Worcester resided in the town of New Echota, located within the boundaries of the Cherokee Nation's territory as defined by treaties with the United States.
- The State of Georgia enacted laws that purported to annex the Cherokee territory, abolish the Cherokee government's authority, and extend Georgia's legal jurisdiction over the area.
- One Georgia law required all white persons residing within the Cherokee territory to obtain a license from the governor of Georgia and swear an oath of allegiance to the state.
- Worcester continued to reside in Cherokee territory with the permission of the Cherokee Nation and the federal government, but without a license from Georgia and without having taken the state's oath.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Georgia indicted Samuel A. Worcester in the Superior Court for Gwinnett County.
- Worcester filed a plea arguing that the state court lacked jurisdiction because Georgia's laws were unconstitutional and void within the territory of the Cherokee Nation.
- The Georgia Superior Court overruled Worcester's plea.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Worcester.
- The Superior Court sentenced Worcester to four years of hard labor in the penitentiary.
- Worcester appealed the final judgment to the United States Supreme Court on a writ of error.
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 a Georgia law requiring non-Native Americans to obtain a state license to reside within the territory of the Cherokee Nation violate the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, and treaties between the United States and the Cherokee Nation?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Marshall
Yes, the Georgia law is unconstitutional and void. The Cherokee Nation is a distinct political community, within which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter, but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties and with the acts of Congress. The court's reasoning rests on a historical analysis of the relationship between European powers, and later the United States, and Native American tribes. It found that these tribes were consistently treated as distinct, independent political communities capable of making binding treaties. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with Indian tribes and makes treaties the supreme law of the land, vesting the federal government with exclusive authority over Indian affairs. The Georgia statutes directly conflict with these federal treaties, which guarantee the Cherokee their land and political autonomy, and are therefore unconstitutional.
Concurring - Justice M'Lean
Yes, the Georgia laws are repugnant to the treaties with the Cherokee Indians and the federal intercourse act of 1802. The power to regulate commerce and relations with Indian tribes is exclusively vested in Congress by the Constitution. This power is as exclusive as the power to regulate foreign commerce or coin money. So long as federal laws and treaties recognizing the right of self-government for Indian nations remain in force, they must be considered the supreme law of the land, and any state laws that contradict them are void. The federal government's authority under the Commerce Clause and its treaty-making power supersedes Georgia's legislative power in this domain.
Dissenting - Justice Baldwin
No. Justice Baldwin's dissent was not fully delivered but was based on two points. First, he believed the record was not properly returned to the Supreme Court from the state court, presenting a procedural bar. Second, on the merits, his opinion remained the same as expressed in the previous term's case, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, where he concurred that the Court lacked original jurisdiction because the Cherokee Nation was not a 'foreign state' under the Constitution.
Analysis:
Worcester v. Georgia is a foundational case in federal Indian law, establishing the principle of tribal sovereignty and affirming the supremacy of federal authority in Indian affairs. The decision defined Native American tribes as 'distinct political communities' with inherent rights to govern their own territories, free from the intrusion of state law. Although famously defied by President Andrew Jackson and the state of Georgia, the case set a critical precedent that federal treaties and laws, not state legislation, are the supreme authority for regulating interactions with Native American nations. This ruling continues to be a cornerstone for litigation involving tribal sovereignty, land rights, and the limits of state jurisdiction over tribal lands.
