OCR Specification focus:
‘Supreme Court rulings and pressure groups reshaped sovereignty and claims.’
From the late nineteenth century onwards, Supreme Court decisions and Native American pressure groups significantly influenced sovereignty, land rights, and legal recognition, redefining the political and cultural status of Native Americans.
Supreme Court and Native American Sovereignty
The Supreme Court played a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape of Native American sovereignty — the inherent authority of Indigenous nations to govern themselves. From the early Marshall Court decisions to landmark twentieth-century rulings, judicial decisions alternately restricted and affirmed tribal authority, profoundly impacting Native communities’ rights and self-determination.
The Legacy of Early Judicial Precedents
Although predating 1865, the Marshall Trilogy established foundational legal principles that influenced later rulings:
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831): Declared Native tribes as “domestic dependent nations”, limiting their sovereignty but recognising a unique political status.
Worcester v. Georgia (1832): Affirmed that state laws held no authority within Native territories, reinforcing tribal sovereignty.
These early cases created a legal framework within which subsequent Supreme Court decisions were contested and interpreted, often inconsistently, throughout the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
The Supreme Court and Sovereignty After 1865
From the end of the Civil War to the mid-twentieth century, the Supreme Court frequently curtailed Native sovereignty, reflecting broader federal policies of assimilation and control.
Curtailing Sovereignty and Land Rights
United States v. Kagama (1886):
This ruling upheld the Major Crimes Act (1885), granting federal jurisdiction over major crimes in Native territories. The Court justified this by portraying Native tribes as “wards of the nation”, reinforcing dependency and federal oversight.Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903):
Perhaps the most damaging decision of this era, it declared that Congress had “plenary power” — complete authority — over Native affairs, including the unilateral ability to abrogate treaties. This undermined tribal sovereignty and legal recourse, enabling aggressive policies of allotment and assimilation.
These decisions entrenched the federal government’s dominance over Native nations, severely restricting their autonomy and property rights.
The Judicial Shift in the Mid-Twentieth Century
The mid-twentieth century witnessed a gradual but important shift, as the Supreme Court began to recognise aspects of Native sovereignty and rights, influenced partly by changing social attitudes and pressure group activism.
Reaffirmation of Tribal Authority
Williams v. Lee (1959):
This case marked a significant turn, ruling that state courts had no jurisdiction over disputes arising on reservations without congressional authorisation. The decision reaffirmed the principle of tribal sovereignty and self-governance.Menominee Tribe v. United States (1968):
The Court upheld the treaty rights of the Menominee people to hunt and fish on their land, despite the federal government’s earlier attempt to terminate their tribal status. This ruling recognised the enduring validity of treaty obligations.
These rulings signalled a judicial recognition of tribal sovereignty as a continuing and enforceable principle, laying the groundwork for further advances.
Supreme Court and Land Claims
Land rights have remained a crucial battleground in Native–federal relations, with Supreme Court decisions shaping the contours of tribal claims and restitution.
Landmark Land Claims Decisions
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (1974):
The Court ruled that Native tribes could bring land claims against state and local governments for violations of historic treaties, opening the door to numerous land restitution cases.United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians (1980):
This landmark decision awarded $106 million in compensation for the illegal seizure of the Black Hills in 1877, although the Sioux Nation famously refused the payment, demanding the return of the land instead.
Map of the Black Hills region (1877) showing the gold mining district and the seat of the Indian War. It situates the area whose seizure later underpinned the Sioux Nation’s Supreme Court victory. The map includes historic mining detail beyond the syllabus, which aids context but is not required. Source
Such cases demonstrated the Supreme Court’s growing willingness to acknowledge historic injustices, even if the remedies offered often fell short of tribal expectations.
Pressure Groups and Native Rights
While judicial decisions were crucial, Native American pressure groups played a transformative role in reshaping sovereignty and land claims, often driving the context in which Supreme Court rulings occurred.
Rise of Pressure Groups in the Twentieth Century
In the early twentieth century, Native advocacy was fragmented and constrained. However, post-World War II activism saw the emergence of influential organisations:
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) (1944):
Formed to protect treaty rights and sovereignty, the NCAI became a prominent voice in lobbying Congress and challenging federal policies.American Indian Movement (AIM) (founded 1968):
AIM adopted more confrontational tactics, such as occupations and protests, to draw attention to sovereignty violations and land rights claims.
These organisations combined legal action, direct protest, and lobbying to push federal institutions, including the Supreme Court, towards more favourable decisions.
Pressure Groups and Landmark Legal Challenges
Pressure groups often initiated or supported significant legal battles, bringing Native issues into the judicial arena and shaping the Supreme Court’s docket.
Occupation of Alcatraz (1969–71): Led by Native activists, this protest highlighted land dispossession and influenced public opinion, creating momentum for policy and legal changes.
Photograph of “Indians Welcome” graffiti on the Alcatraz water tower, created during the 1969–71 occupation. The image illustrates how pressure-group protest reframed sovereignty and land claims in the media and politics. It focuses on symbolism rather than legal doctrine, complementing the legal narrative in the notes. Source
Trail of Broken Treaties (1972): This nationwide protest, culminating in the occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, drew attention to treaty violations and the need for legal redress.
United States v. Washington (1974): Backed by Native activists, this case reaffirmed fishing rights guaranteed by treaties, allocating 50% of fish harvests to tribes in Washington State.
Pressure groups not only amplified Native voices but also provided the strategic and legal resources necessary to pursue cases that transformed the legal landscape.
Synergy Between Courts and Activism
The interaction between Supreme Court rulings and pressure group activity was dynamic and reciprocal:
Judicial victories often followed periods of sustained activism, which reframed Native issues in legal and political discourse.
Pressure groups leveraged favourable rulings to secure further gains in policy and negotiation, reinforcing sovereignty and land claims.
Landmark decisions inspired further activism, as seen after the Oneida and Sioux Nation cases, which galvanised broader movements for land restitution.
This synergy was crucial in transforming the legal status of Native Americans from wards of the state into sovereign nations with recognised rights and claims under federal law.
Continuing Challenges and Legacy
Despite significant progress, challenges remained. Supreme Court decisions were not always consistently favourable, and many rulings left key issues unresolved. Nevertheless, the combined impact of judicial decisions and pressure group activism profoundly reshaped the political and legal position of Native Americans by the late twentieth century, establishing enduring principles of tribal sovereignty, treaty enforcement, and land rights that continue to shape Native–federal relations.
FAQ
The term “domestic dependent nations”, introduced in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), defined Native tribes as distinct political communities under U.S. guardianship. This meant they retained certain self-governing powers but were ultimately subject to federal authority.
While it limited full sovereignty, the concept provided a legal foundation for future claims, allowing tribes to assert their right to internal governance and control over their territories. Later Supreme Court decisions often referenced this status when determining the balance between tribal, federal, and state authority.
Pressure groups were instrumental in identifying injustices and organising legal challenges that might otherwise have gone unaddressed.
They funded and supported test cases, helping tribes pursue claims that required significant legal expertise and financial backing.
They shaped public opinion and political agendas, increasing pressure on federal authorities to resolve disputes through the courts.
Groups like the NCAI built alliances with legal experts and sympathetic politicians, ensuring tribal issues reached the national stage.
Their work ensured the Supreme Court confronted key sovereignty and treaty questions that shaped Native rights.
The Sioux Nation rejected the $106 million compensation from United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians (1980) because they believed that land, not money, was the rightful restitution.
The Black Hills hold profound spiritual and cultural significance for the Sioux, being central to their identity and traditions. Accepting monetary compensation could have been interpreted as relinquishing their claim to the land.
By refusing the money, the Sioux continued their long-standing demand for land restoration, maintaining political and moral pressure on the federal government.
Supreme Court rulings often limited state governments’ power in Native affairs, strengthening federal and tribal authority.
For example, Worcester v. Georgia (1832) and Williams v. Lee (1959) both confirmed that states lacked jurisdiction within reservations without explicit congressional authorisation.
However, the Court also upheld federal supremacy, meaning states could influence Native affairs indirectly through federal channels. This balance ensured that tribal sovereignty remained distinct from state authority, though still constrained by federal power.
The visibility and determination of Native activism reshaped perceptions of sovereignty from a historical issue into an urgent civil rights question.
Events like the Occupation of Alcatraz and the Trail of Broken Treaties generated widespread media attention, highlighting centuries of broken treaties and dispossession.
These actions reframed Native struggles as part of the broader fight for equality, prompting lawmakers and the public to reconsider long-ignored treaty obligations.
Increased awareness led to legislative reforms and more sympathetic judicial interpretations, laying groundwork for landmark cases in the 1970s and 1980s.
Activism turned Native sovereignty into a national conversation, influencing both legal outcomes and policy directions.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
Name two ways in which the Supreme Court influenced Native American sovereignty in the twentieth century.
Mark Scheme:
Award 1 mark for each correct point, up to a maximum of 2 marks.
Possible answers include:
By reaffirming tribal sovereignty in Williams v. Lee (1959), ruling that state courts had no jurisdiction over disputes on reservations without congressional approval. (1 mark)
By upholding treaty rights in Menominee Tribe v. United States (1968), confirming the continued validity of hunting and fishing rights. (1 mark)
By allowing tribes to bring land claims in Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (1974). (1 mark)
By awarding compensation for illegal land seizure in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians (1980). (1 mark)
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain how pressure groups contributed to the advancement of Native American rights in the twentieth century.
Mark Scheme:
Level 1 (1–2 marks):
Basic description of pressure groups with limited detail or examples.
May mention AIM or NCAI without explaining their impact.
Level 2 (3–4 marks):
Clear explanation of how pressure groups contributed to advancing rights, supported by some accurate examples.
May describe protests such as the Occupation of Alcatraz (1969–71) or the Trail of Broken Treaties (1972) and link them to raising awareness of sovereignty and treaty issues.
Level 3 (5–6 marks):
Detailed explanation with well-selected examples and clear linkage between pressure group actions and changes in Native American rights.
Explains how groups like the NCAI influenced federal policy and legal challenges, while AIM used direct action to draw attention to land and sovereignty claims.
May include the role of activism in paving the way for legal outcomes such as United States v. Washington (1974).
.jpg){kind=link}