Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Worcester v. Georgia

Supreme Court of the United States · 1832 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFederal Indian LawSupremacy ClauseState power and federal powerTreatiesCherokee NationIndian tribesdistinct political communities

Facts

Georgia enacted a statute making it a crime for white persons to reside within the Cherokee Nation without a license from the governor and an oath to support Georgia law. Worcester, a citizen of Vermont, lived in the Cherokee Nation as a missionary under authority of the President of the United States and with the permission of the Cherokee Nation. He pleaded that the acts charged occurred in Cherokee territory outside Georgia's jurisdiction and that the Georgia statute was void because it conflicted with treaties between the United States and the Cherokees and with federal intercourse laws. The Georgia court overruled that plea, convicted him, and sentenced him to four years in the penitentiary.

Issue

Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review this state criminal judgment, and whether Georgia could apply its licensing statute within Cherokee territory consistently with the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States. More specifically, the question was whether Cherokee territory was subject to Georgia's legislative jurisdiction notwithstanding federal treaties and statutes recognizing and protecting Cherokee self-government and territory.

Rule

Indian nations, as recognized by the United States, are distinct political communities occupying their own territory, with boundaries described by treaty, within which state laws have no force. The whole intercourse between the United States and such nations is vested exclusively in the federal government by the Constitution, treaties, and acts of Congress; therefore a state law that interferes with that relationship or is repugnant to federal treaties or statutes is void, and a state-court judgment enforcing it is reversible under section 25 of the Judiciary Act.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The United States has long maintained treaties and federal statutes recognizing the Red Mesa Nation as a self-governing political community with defined territorial boundaries in Arizona. Arizona then enacts a law requiring any nonmember living in Red Mesa territory to obtain a state permit and swear loyalty to Arizona law, and prosecutes Jonah Price, a federally authorized schoolteacher residing there with the Nation's consent.

Is Arizona's law valid as applied to Jonah?

Explanation. The majority held that Indian nations recognized by treaties and federal statutes are distinct political communities occupying their own territory, within which state laws have no force when the United States has exclusively regulated intercourse with that nation. A state licensing-and-oath requirement imposed on a federally authorized resident in such territory directly conflicts with the Constitution, treaties, and federal laws, and is therefore void.