"...the Doctrine of Discovery has been institutionalized in law and policy, on national and international levels, and lies at the root of the violations of indigenous peoples’ human rights, both individual and collective."
~The United Nations Social and Economic Council |
As in the other branches of government, the history of Native Americans in the Supreme Court has been a largely fruitless and frustrating struggle. The decisions of John Marshall set the foundation for the views on Indian rights with three major cases which denied that the tribes held title to the land and instead gave the tribes only the “right of occupancy” and the status of dependency. As time passed, the idea of tribes as wards of the United States government only deepened .
The Marshall Trilogy: Johnson vs. McIntosh (1823): This case was the first of the “Marshall Trilogy”, a set of three cases during the era of John Marshall as Supreme Court Justice which set precedent for the handling of Indian Affairs from then onward. In this case, the plaintiff, descendants of Thomas Johnson, tried to get the Supreme Court to uphold their land grant purchased from the Illinois and Piankeshaw Indians in the 1770s after the defendant, William McIntosh, had acquired a patent for the same land from the United States government after independence. The question debated was whether Native American tribes could sell land to private individuals such that the resulting claims could be upheld in court. The decision upheld the McIntosh claim as given by the government, rationalized under the “discovery doctrine”. This doctrine was the idea that during the Age of Discovery, titles to lands were given to the first European Christian nation that discovered them, thereafter leaving the aborigines only the “right of occupancy”. Using this, Marshall attempted to justify the court’s decision. Johnson vs. McIntosh is significant because it stated that the United States already owned all the land within its borders and had the right to award it to whoever they wished. Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia (1831): In this case, the Cherokee Nation, under the leadership of John Ross, sought an injunction against the state of Georgia for its limitation of Cherokee rights. This came about after a period of time in which Georgia passed a series of laws severely restricting Cherokee rights and authorizing the removal of the Cherokees from Georgia. The Cherokee nation sued for the termination of the aforementioned laws, but instead of giving a decision, the Supreme Court ruled that it did not have the power to hear the case. Although expressing sympathy for the plight of the Cherokees, Marshall argued that since the framing of the Constitution Native American tribes have been viewed as “domestic dependent nations” as opposed to “sovereign nations” and as such the Supreme Court could not pass judgement on the case. Worcester vs. Georgia (1832): Prior to this case, Georgia had passed yet another law restricting the Cherokees stating that Georgian citizens were required to obtain a license before residing within the Cherokee nations. When a group of missionaries including Austin Worcester refused to abide by this, they were convicted. In this case, Worcester appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis that Georgia did not have the power to convict him. The decision was that the Cherokee Nation was an independent political entity that Georgia could not regulate and as such, its license law was unconstitutional. Marshall clarified that the Cherokee nation was entitled to national protection within Georgia and that only the federal government had the ability to treat with Native American tribes. This was significant because it defined the relation between Indian tribes, the U.S. government, and states. However, it is noteworthy that the President at the time, Andrew Jackson, completely disregarded the court’s ruling and authorized the removal of the Cherokee on what became known as the “Trail of Tears”. He is said to have stated, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”. |