answersLogoWhite

0

In Worcester v. Georgia, the US Supreme Court decided the states (in this case, Georgia) had no right to redraw the boundaries of Native American territories, or to require white people to purchase a license to live on the land. As a result, the lower court decision convicting eleven missionaries of violating state law by refusing to purchase a permit to live on Cherokee land was reversed.

Georgia ignored the order to stop interfering with the Cherokee's rights, and President Jackson made no effort to enforce the order because he had no legal obligation to do so, and sympathized with Georgia's interests.

Case Citation:

Worcester v. Georgia, 31 US 515 (1832)

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago

What else can I help you with?

Related Questions

What U.S. Supreme Court case ruled in favor of the Cherokee claiming them as a sovereign nation?

The U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled in favor of the Cherokee Nation as a sovereign entity was Worcester v. Georgia (1832). The Court held that the state of Georgia could not impose its laws within Cherokee territory, affirming the Cherokee's right to self-governance. This decision emphasized the federal government's obligation to protect the rights of Native American nations. However, President Andrew Jackson famously ignored the ruling, leading to the forced removal of the Cherokee during the Trail of Tears.


Why was the religious right upset with some of president reagan’s supreme court appointments?

They ruled in favor of gay rights


What did the supreme court rule in Worcester v . Georgia?

Court ruled that Georgia was not entitled to regulate the Cherokee nor to invade their lands.


Why was religious right upset with some of Reagan's Supreme Court appointments?

They ruled in favor of gay rights


What did the Supreme Court rule in the case Worcester v. Georgia?

Court ruled that Georgia was not entitled to regulate the Cherokee nor to invade their lands.


In South Dakota v dole the supreme court ruled?

•7 to 2 vote in favor of Secretary Dole.


Who ruled in flavor of the Cherokee and against their removal?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee Nation in the case of Worcester v. Georgia in 1832. Chief Justice John Marshall authored the opinion, affirming that the state of Georgia had no authority to impose its laws on Cherokee lands. This ruling recognized the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation, but ultimately, it was ignored by President Andrew Jackson, leading to the forced removal of the Cherokee people along the Trail of Tears.


Why were Cherokees forced to move even though the supreme court ruled in their favor?

The Cherokee were forced to move despite the Supreme Court ruling in their favor due to President Andrew Jackson's refusal to enforce the Court's decision. The ruling in Worcester v. Georgia (1832) affirmed the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation, but Jackson's administration prioritized land and economic interests over judicial authority. This led to the implementation of the Indian Removal Act, ultimately resulting in the tragic Trail of Tears, where thousands of Cherokees were forcibly displaced.


Why were liberals upset with the Supreme Court ruling in Bush v Gore?

They believed that the Court's conservative majority ruled in favor of Bush because of his conservative views


How would the controversy over slavery have been affected if the supreme court had ruled in favor of dred Scott?

Gta 5 is coming out


What was the majority decision in Roe Vs Wade?

The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Roe vs. Wade.


Why did the Supreme Court find in favor of Worcester in the 1832 Supreme Court case?

In the 1832 Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia, the Court ruled in favor of Worcester, affirming that the state of Georgia had no authority to impose its laws on Cherokee lands. The decision was based on the principle that the federal government had exclusive authority over Indian affairs, as established in treaties. Chief Justice John Marshall emphasized that the Cherokee Nation was a distinct community with its own rights, and thus, the state could not infringe upon their sovereignty. This ruling highlighted the federal government's obligation to protect Native American nations from state encroachments.