Worcester v. Georgia
 | |
| Worcester v. Georgia | |
| Reference: 31 US 515 | |
| Term: 1832 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: February 21-23, 1832 Decided: March 3, 1832 | |
| Outcome | |
| Superior Court for the County of Gwinett in the State of Georgia reversed | |
| Majority | |
| John Marshall • Gabriel Duvall • Joseph Story • Smith Thompson • John McLean | |
| Dissenting | |
| Henry Baldwin | |
Worcester v. Georgia is a case decided on March 3, 1832, by the United States Supreme Court in which the court found that a Georgia law aiming to regulate dealings with the Cherokee Nation was unconstitutional because it interfered with the federal government's treaty authority. The court reversed the decision of the Superior Court for the County of Gwinett in the State of Georgia.[1]
Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision in this case established the precedent that the federal government's authority and the U.S. Constitution preempt, or override, state laws. The case also affirmed the federal government's exclusive power to enter into treaties with other nations. To read more about the impact of Worcester v. Georgia click here.
Background
In September 1831, Samuel A. Worcester and fellow non-Native American Christian missionaries were indicted for violating an 1830 Georgia statute that prohibited non-Native Americans from occupying the Cherokee Nation without a permit and without having taken the oath to support and defend the Georgia Constitution and state laws. Worcester argued that the Superior Court for the County of Gwinnett in the State of Georgia could not prosecute him because the Georgia law violated the U.S. Constitution, treaties between the United States and the Cherokee Nation, and an act of Congress that regulated trade and dealings with the Cherokee Nation.[1][2]
Worcester argued that the state could not prosecute him and his fellow missionaries because the Georgia statute violated the U.S. Constitution, which granted the federal government exclusive authority to enter into treaties with other nations. The United States had previously entered into a treaty with the Cherokee Nation, distinguishing it as a separate entity from the states that could only engage in dealings with the federal government. Worcester also argued that the Georgia law violated an act of Congress that regulated all trade and relations with the Cherokee Nation.[2]
The Superior Court for the County of Gwinett in the State of Georgia convicted Worcester and his fellow missionaries for violating the 1830 act passed by the Georgia legislature. Worcester was convicted and sentenced. The U.S. Supreme Court received the case on a writ of error.[1]
Oral argument
Oral arguments were held on February 21-23, 1832. The case was decided on March 3, 1832.[1]
Decision
The Supreme Court decided 5-1 to reverse the decision of the Superior Court for the County of Gwinett in the State of Georgia. Justice John Marshall delivered the opinion of the court, with Justice John McLean writing a concurring opinion. Justice Henry Baldwin dissented and Justice William Johnson did not participate in the decision.[2]
Opinions
Opinion of the court
Justice John Marshall, writing for the court, argued that the treaty signed between the United States and the Cherokee Nation was valid and therefore could not be impeded by state statutes:[2]
| “ | That the treaties, subsisting between the United States, and the Cherokees, acknowledge their right as a sovereign nation to govern themselves and all persons who have settled within their territory, free from any right of legislative interference by the several states composing the United States of America. That the act under which the prosecution was instituted is repugnant to the said treaties, and is, therefore, unconstitutional and void. That the said act is also unconstitutional because it interferes with and attempts to regulate and control the intercourse with the Cherokee Nation, which belongs exclusively to Congress, and because also it is repugnant to the statute of the United States [3] | ” |
| —John Marshall, majority opinion in Worcester v. Georgia[2] | ||
Concurring opinion
Justice John McLean wrote a concurring opinion, asserting that state laws must be revised if they violate the U.S. Constitution:
| “ | When this Court are required to enforce the laws of any State, they are governed by those laws. So closely do they adhere to this rule that, during the present term, a judgment of a Circuit Court of the United States, made in pursuance of decisions of this Court, has been reversed and annulled because it did not conform to the decisions of the State court in giving a construction to a local law. But while this Court conforms its decisions to those of the State courts on all questions arising under the statutes and Constitutions of the respective States, they are bound to revise and correct those decisions if they annul either the Constitution of the United States or the laws made under it.[3] | ” |
| —Byron White, concurring opinion in Worcester v. Georgia[2] | ||
Dissenting opinion
Justice Henry Baldwin, wrote a dissenting opinion that argued the record was not properly returned upon the writ of error, and ought to have been returned by the state court instead of the clerk of court. His written opinion was never distributed to a reporter.[2]
Impact
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
Worcester v. Georgia established the precedent that the federal government's constitutional authority preempts, or overrides, state laws, and affirmed the federal government’s exclusive power to enter into treaties with other nations.[1][2]
See also
External links
- Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Oyez, "Worcester v. Georgia", accessed July 21, 2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Justia, "Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)" accessed July 8, 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
