This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Crow Coal History: Draft 12/24 Main Menu Introduction Introduction Timeline and Map Timeline and Map of Major Events Detailed History In-depth Historical Information Resources Resources Contact Contact Page About About page

Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823)

43381

The Johnson case established two important principles for Indigenous-federal relations. The first, the so-called doctrine of discovery, argued that Indigenous peoples lost title to the land and only retained occupancy rights when European explorers and settlers "discovered" North America. The second, that the federal government had the right to oversee Indigenous-related matters.

For more information see Matthew LM Fletcher, “A Short History of Indian Law in the Supreme Court,” Human Rights 40, no. 4 (2015): 3–6 and Lindsay G. Robertson, “The Judicial Conquest of Native America: The Story of Johnson v. M‘Intosh,” in Indian Law Stories, ed. Goldberg, Washburn, and Frickey (New York: Foundation Press, 2011), 29–60.

This page has paths:

1800s-1920s Kerri Clement
Contents of this path:

This page is referenced by:

19th Century Legal Decisions Early important Supreme Court cases regarding Indigenous Nations include the so-called "Marshall Trilogy." These cases,--Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia (1832)--outlined that the federal government had supremacy in dealing with Indigenous nations over that of state governments, that state laws did not apply in Indian country, and acknowledged tribal nations governmental authority.

For more information see Matthew LM Fletcher, “A Short History of Indian Law in the Supreme Court,” Human Rights 40, no. 4 (2015): 3–6.