History
Introduction
The Marshall Trilogy refers to the three landmark cases that became the foundation of today’s context of tribal sovereignty. Chief Justice John Marshall played a significant role in the formation of federal Indian law and most specially the American legal system. The Marshall Court made important decisions that shaped the frameworks o the federal Indian law. The three cases relate to land issues asserting the Doctrine of Discovery, fight of removal, and control of activities in the Indian land. The discussion will explore the context of the Marshall Trilogy articulating the cases of Johnson v. M’Intosh, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, and Worcester v. Georgia. The three cases encompass the competing theoretical perspectives pertaining to tribal sovereignty, which the discussion aims to highlight. Over the years, the Court has rallied to insinuate the fundamentals of the tribal sovereign cases, where the Marshall Trilogy became a cornerstone in establishing the doctrinal basis for the interpretation of the federal Indian law.
The Marshall Trilogy
The fist case is Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823) in which the US Supreme Court decided that the Indians do not have the power to privately sell lands to any party without the consent of federal government asserting the provisions of the 1790 Indian Trade and Intercourse Act. This decision was upheld the context of the Doctrine of Discovery where the Europeans are the one that discovered the land and the federal government holds such title. Hence, the right of the Indians to absolute sovereignty is limited by the effect of the aforementioned doctrine. Primarily, the case involves William M’Intosh who obtained a patent for the Piankeshaw Indian land from the US Federal Government. However, Thomas Johnson purchased the same land from the Priankeshaw Indians, which the Court upheld that the latter has no right to sell land.
The second case in the Marshall Trilogy is Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) in which the Supreme Court decided that the Indians are domestic dependent nations that resembles a relation similar to a ward to his guardian. This decision encompasses a ruling that that provides the legal precedent of the Indian and US trust relationship in which the federal government will provide particular benefits and services for the Indian people. The case involves Cherokee Chief John Ross asked an injunction from the US Supreme Court to prevent the state of Georgia from imposing laws over the Cherokee nation. Primarily, the Cherokee Tribe asserts that the tribe is a foreign nation and that the laws of the state do not apply to them. Apparently, the Court denied the injunction and upheld the premise of the domestic dependent nation. This means that the sovereign institution of the Cherokee Tribe cannot be assimilated as that of a State or a foreign State. Although the Cherokee Tribe was given the authority to govern over their people, it still cannot withstand the boundaries of the US sovereignty as a whole.
The third case in the Marshall Trilogy is the Worcester v. Georgia (1832). In this particular case, the subject of sovereignty was questioned because of the incident where the Missionary Samuel Worcester was imprisoned because of preaching on the Cherokee lands without apparent license to do so. Worcester filed suit against the state of Georgia asserting that the state has no control over the Cherokee lands. In this case that the US Supreme Court decided that the State of Georgia has no authority over the actions and persons within the Cherokee lands and that the laws of the State do not extend to the Indian lands. Furthermore, the Court upholds that the land is under the protection of the federal government and that the state has no plenary or overriding power over the Indian lands other than the Congress. The same boundaries also apply on other Indian nation, which holds inherent sovereignty that allows them to enforce their own laws within their boundaries.
In Summary
The Marshall Trilogy sets out the principles of the federal Indian law involving aboriginal land claims where the Indians were given the rights to occupy the lands and use it as how they see fit, but claims over such land either through private purchase or patent can be only negotiated with the United States government. The second principle of the Marshall Trilogy involves tribal sovereignty. In this principle that Tribes are considered as a nation within a nation with the authority to govern themselves inherently, which means that the tribes are already self-governing long before the European settlers came to the New World (Weaver, 2001). The United States government recognizes such inherent sovereignty, but it resembles the characteristic of a domestic dependent nation. The third case pertains to federal trust responsibility, which provides that the United States will protect the Indian lands including their, resources, economic and political interests within their tribal boundaries in addition to certain services for the Indian people (Garroutte, 2001). This trust responsibility was drawn from the fact the federal government took the Indian lands, but in return shall protect and provide Indians with sufficient support.
Conclusion
Primarily, the Marshall Trilogy defines sovereignty as the preservation of the Indian inherent sovereignty including treaty rights, which has long been the subject of the Native American Civil Rights Movement. On the other hand, the limited sovereignty means that the US government has the responsibility to protect the Indian lands, rights to self-governance, and resources that are paramount to the tribe’s advancement and survival. The context of sovereignty is often misunderstood by the state, which assumes that the laws of the state will also apply to the dependent Indian nations within the state boundaries.
References
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 25 30 U.S. 1 8 (U.S. LEXIS 337 1831).
Garroutte, E. (2001). The Racial Formation of American Indians: Negotiating Legitimate Identities within Tribal and Federal Law. The American Indian Quarterly, 25(2), 224-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2001.0020
Johnson v. M’Intosh, 681 21 U.S. 543 5 (U.S. LEXIS 293 1823).
Weaver, H. (2001). Indigenous Identity: What Is It and Who Really Has It?. The American Indian Quarterly, 25(2), 240-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2001.0030
Worcester v. Georgia, 483 31 U.S. 515 8 (U.S. Supreme Court 1831).
