This text was tailored from an essay that first appeared within the essay assortment America Unfinished: 250 Years of Law and Governance (MIT Press, 2026).
***
Indian nations occupy two distinct locations in American historical past and regulation. American Indians are talked about solely as soon as within the Declaration of Independence. They’re in a phrase complaining about King George III’s alliances with Indian nations to oppose American invasion of Indian nation, and they’re described, not as nations, however as “cruel Indian Savages.” Nor was this a slip of the tongue or a short emotional outburst. The lawyer for the plaintiffs within the 1823 Supreme Court docket case of Johnson v. M’Intosh equally referred to Native peoples as “savage tribes,” and even Chief Justice John Marshall described them as “fierce savages.” Alternatively, each the lawyer for the defendants and the Supreme Court docket in its opinion referred to them as “tribes or nations” or “Indian nations.” And the 1832 case of Worcester v. Georgia referred to “Indian nations” as “distinct, impartial political communities, having territorial boundaries, inside which their authority is unique, and having a proper to all of the lands inside these boundaries, which isn’t solely acknowledged, however guarantied by america.”
The distinction between “savages” and “nations” displays a deep ambivalence in regards to the relationship between america and the Indian nations. Over the course of U.S. historical past, the “savages” formulation typically prevailed, both to justify elimination of Indians from lands east of the Mississippi River from the 1830s to the 1860s or as a purpose to “civilize” the Indians by outlawing tribal faith, selling conversion to Christianity, privatizing tribal lands, and kidnapping tribal youngsters to be educated at harsh boarding faculties. However, in different eras of U.S. historical past, america handled Indian nations as distinct political communities with inherent sovereignty and the ability to implement their very own legal guidelines inside their very own territory. That was the case in colonial occasions and the early republic when the U.S. entered treaties with Indian nations, and the New Deal period when the U.S. inspired Indian nations to undertake written constitutions and to revitalize their governments. It has additionally been the overall nationwide coverage ever since 1975 when america embraced self-determination for Tribes.
However, it’s potential to graduate from many (however not all) regulation faculties in america and by no means hear the phrases “tribal sovereignty.” Many residents of america (together with regulation college students) are unaware of the truth that america has by no means conquered the 575 federally acknowledged Indian nations who retain their inherent sovereignty and proceed to thrive as “distinct, impartial political communities.” But each president since Richard Nixon, whether or not Republican or Democratic, has affirmed the “government-to-government” relationship between america and the varied Indian nations, and each Congress since that point has, with some exceptions, revered tribal sovereignty. Simply final 12 months, on Dec. 18, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a congressional bill recognizing the inherent sovereignty of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina.
The truth that the U.S. has chosen to respect tribal sovereignty, not less than partially, is to its credit score. Certainly, the persistence of tribal sovereignty is a testomony to the norm of self-determination which condemns each imperialism and colonialism. The USA itself originated with the assumption that it had a proper to self-determination. And whereas the U.S. has not all the time honored the Tribes’ proper to self-determination, as famous, since 1975 each Congress and the president have typically acknowledged and revered the inherent sovereignty of the 575 Indian nations.
All through this, the Supreme Court docket has performed an advanced function in shaping the authorized relationship between Indian nations and america and the state governments. At numerous occasions in historical past, it has strongly affirmed that Tribes have inherent sovereignty that predates america and persists to at the present time. However at different occasions, the court docket has authorized authorities actions that restrict tribal sovereignty or which even terminate the government-to-government relationship between america and dozens of Tribes. And whereas the Supreme Court docket has maintained its robust assist for tribal energy over their very own members, it has severely restricted the powers of Tribes to control nonmembers who enter their territory.
In 2016, for instance, the court docket divided 4-4 in a case about whether or not the Tribal Court docket of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians may hear a case by a tribal member towards a nonmember company when its worker sexually abused a tribal baby. The corporate leased land from the Tribe, obtained a enterprise license from the Tribe, and agreed to take part in an unpaid internship program for tribal minors. The sexual abuse of the Choctaw baby occurred on Choctaw land inside Choctaw territory. The 4-4 vote meant that the Supreme Court docket didn’t discover it straightforward to find out whether or not the Tribe would have the ability to guard its personal youngsters from hurt on tribal lands.
This didn’t make sense as a matter of precedent. The Supreme Court docket had held in 1981, within the case of Montana v. United States, that Tribes can regulate non-Indians “who enter consensual relationships with the tribe . . . by means of business dealing, contracts, leases, or different preparations” and/or who have interaction in conduct on nonmember land when it “threatens or has some direct impact on the political integrity, the financial safety, or the well being or welfare of the tribe.” One may assume that the rape of a tribal baby on tribal land inside tribal territory threatens the well being or welfare of the Tribe, particularly when it arises out of three consensual relationships with the Tribe. But 4 justices thought non-Indians shouldn’t have to seem in tribal courts to reply a civil declare even once they enter tribal land throughout the Tribe’s territory and rape a tribal baby.
Maybe 4 of the justices remorse their ruling in Montana that approved tribal court docket fits by Tribes or their members towards nonmembers once they hurt tribal pursuits. Maybe they think about that Tribes might be unfair to non-Indians, given the sorry historical past of mistreatment of Indian nations by the states. Maybe they sympathize with non-Indians who’re blind to tribal sovereignty and by no means contemplated being topic to the regulatory powers of tribal councils and courts. In that case, we’re seeing the echoes of the angle towards Native nations displayed within the Declaration of Independence.
However the court docket’s current file has not been fully to disclaim tribal sovereignty. In 2020, the Supreme Court docket held by a vote of 5-4 in McGirtv. Oklahoma that as a result of Congress had by no means formally disestablished the Muscogee Reservation in Oklahoma that it persists to at the present time. To the shock of many, maps needed to be modified as a result of a lot of the state of Oklahoma is now additionally Indian nation. That signifies that non-Indians getting into tribal lands might be topic to tribal regulation. Solely two years later, nonetheless, within the case of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, the court docket held that states have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal authorities over crimes by non-Indians towards Indians in Indian nation. Whereas indirectly limiting tribal sovereignty, the Castro-Huerta majority subjected tribal members to state regulation in a way that was inconsistent with 200 years of authorized apply (and McGirt).
On the very least, the break up votes within the Choctaw, Castro-Huerta, and McGirt circumstances inform us that – whilst Congress and the president have come to favor tribal sovereignty – the competition between the nations’ traditionally dueling views of Indian nations continues to hang-out the Supreme Court docket’s understanding of American regulation.