Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia
The Supreme Court refused to block Georgia's laws stripping the Cherokee Nation of its land and self-government, ruling that it had no power to hear the case because the Cherokee Nation was not a "foreign state" that could sue a state directly in the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Marshall described the Cherokees instead as a "domestic dependent nation," a phrase that became the foundation of how American law has treated tribal governments ever since, even as the Court left the Cherokees without a court remedy for Georgia's actions.
“They may, more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations.”
Marshall's famous description of the Cherokee Nation's legal status under the Constitution.
How it got here: The Cherokee Nation filed an original bill directly in the Supreme Court seeking an injunction against Georgia, invoking the Court's constitutional power to hear cases between a state and a foreign state.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The Cherokee Nation, an indigenous people who had signed multiple treaties with the United States guaranteeing their remaining lands, sued to stop Georgia from enforcing state laws that abolished Cherokee self-government, seized Cherokee territory (including gold mines) for distribution to Georgia citizens, and extended Georgia's criminal jurisdiction over Cherokee country. The Cherokees asked the Supreme Court for an injunction to halt these actions.
The question before the Court
Could the Cherokee Nation sue the state of Georgia in the U.S. Supreme Court to stop Georgia from taking over Cherokee land and abolishing Cherokee self-government?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation could not sue Georgia directly in the Supreme Court, because the Constitution only allows such suits between a state and a "foreign state," and the Cherokees did not qualify as one. Although the majority agreed the Cherokees were a distinct, self-governing political society, it found their unique relationship with the United States — depending on federal protection, occupying land within U.S. borders, and lacking standing among other nations — placed them in a different category the Court called a "domestic dependent nation," rather than a foreign power.
Because the Cherokee Nation was not a proper party under this narrow reading, the Court never reached whether Georgia's laws actually violated Cherokee treaty rights. The majority also suggested that ordering Georgia to stop enforcing its laws would require the kind of political interference courts should avoid, leaving the Cherokees without a remedy from the Supreme Court.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
The ruling left the Cherokee Nation with no federal court remedy against Georgia's seizure of its land and abolition of its government, clearing a legal path toward the removal policies that led to the Trail of Tears. The "domestic dependent nation" framework the Court announced here has shaped the legal status of Native American tribes and their relationship to state and federal governments for nearly two centuries.
What changes now
The injunction was denied, leaving Georgia's laws in effect and the Cherokee Nation without a Supreme Court remedy against the state's actions. The decision did not resolve whether Georgia's laws actually violated federal treaties -- a question the Court would confront differently the following year in a related case brought by a non-Indian missionary. The ruling left the door open for further disputes over how the federal government's treaty obligations to the Cherokees would be enforced, if at all, by other branches of government.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether Georgia's laws actually violated the treaties the United States had made with the Cherokee Nation, or whether those laws were otherwise unconstitutional. It ruled only that the Cherokee Nation could not bring this particular kind of lawsuit directly to the Supreme Court as a "foreign state."
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Johnson
Justice Johnson agreed the injunction should be denied but went further than the majority, doubting the Cherokees could even be called a "state" given their level of political organization and history of ceding sovereignty in treaties like Hopewell. He also argued the entire dispute was inherently political -- essentially a claim of invasion and war between sovereigns -- and therefore completely unfit for judicial resolution regardless of the parties' status.
Concurrence — Justice Baldwin
Justice Baldwin concurred in denying the injunction but rejected the majority's reasoning entirely, arguing there was no proper plaintiff before the Court at all. He reviewed the history of congressional and state dealings with Indian tribes since before the Constitution to argue tribes were never treated as foreign sovereigns, and warned that recognizing the Cherokees as a foreign state would destabilize state sovereignty over Indian territory nationwide.
Dissent — Justice Thompson
“It is the political relation in which one government or country stands to another, which constitutes it foreign to the other.”Thompson's argument that the Cherokee Nation's self-governance made it a foreign state despite lying within Georgia's borders.
Justice Thompson argued the Cherokee Nation was in fact a foreign state under the Constitution because it was politically independent, governed itself by its own laws, and had negotiated numerous formal treaties with the United States in the same manner as any foreign power. He would have found jurisdiction and, on the merits, would have granted at least partial injunctive relief against Georgia's laws that directly violated the Cherokees' treaty-secured property rights.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court first asked whether it even had jurisdiction to hear the case, since the Constitution lets the Supreme Court hear original cases only in disputes between a state and a "foreign state," among other categories, and Georgia could only be sued here if the Cherokee Nation qualified as one.
- The majority agreed the Cherokees were a distinct political society capable of governing themselves, but found the constitutional term "foreign state" carried a narrower meaning that did not include Indian tribes living within U.S. territory.
- The Court pointed to a separate constitutional clause giving Congress power to regulate commerce with "foreign nations," the states, and "Indian tribes" as three distinct categories, reasoning that if tribes were meant to be foreign nations, this separate listing would have been unnecessary.
- Because the Cherokees occupied land within U.S. borders, depended on the federal government for protection, and were not treated as equals in international relations, the majority concluded they were better described as a "domestic dependent nation" -- neither a state of the union nor a fully foreign power.
- The Court also questioned whether the underlying dispute was suited for judicial resolution at all, since ordering Georgia to stop enforcing its laws would require the Court to control a state's legislature and use of force, a role the majority viewed as more political than judicial.
- Having found no jurisdiction over a suit by the Cherokee Nation as a plaintiff, the Court concluded it could not reach the merits of whether Georgia's laws violated the Cherokees' treaty rights.