Supreme Court Grapples with Tribal Sovereignty in Evolving Legal Landscape

Washington D.C. — The Supreme Court has consistently played a complex role in defining the legal relationship between Indian nations and U.S. state and federal governments. Its decisions have at times affirmed inherent tribal sovereignty and at others authorized actions limiting it.

Historically, U.S. legal and political discourse has presented contrasting views of Indian nations. The Declaration of Independence referred to them as “merciless Indian Savages.” In the 1823 Supreme Court case *Johnson v. M’Intosh*, the plaintiff's lawyer called Native peoples “savage tribes,” and Chief Justice John Marshall also described them as “fierce savages.” However, the defense in that case and the Court's opinion referred to them as “tribes or nations” or “Indian nations.”

The 1832 case of *Worcester v. Georgia* further described “Indian nations” as “distinct, independent political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged, but guarantied by the United States.”

This historical ambivalence has manifested in varying U.S. policies. At times, the “savage” portrayal justified actions such as the removal of Indian populations from lands east of the Mississippi River from the 1830s to the 1860s. It also underpinned efforts to assimilate Native peoples through measures like outlawing tribal religions, promoting conversion to Christianity, privatizing tribal lands, and enrolling tribal children in boarding schools.

Conversely, other periods saw the U.S. treat Indian nations as distinct political entities with inherent sovereignty. This approach characterized colonial times and the early republic when the U.S. entered treaties with Indian nations. The New Deal era also encouraged Indian nations to adopt written constitutions and revitalize their governments. Since 1975, U.S. national policy has generally embraced self-determination for Tribes.

Every president since Richard Nixon has affirmed a “government-to-government” relationship with Indian nations. Congress has also largely respected tribal sovereignty during this period. For example, on December 18, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a congressional bill recognizing the inherent sovereignty of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina.

Despite this, many legal professionals and U.S. residents remain unaware of tribal sovereignty. The U.S. has not conquered the 575 federally recognized Indian nations, who retain inherent sovereignty and function as distinct political communities.

The Supreme Court's decisions demonstrate ongoing internal divisions on these issues. In 2016, the Court divided 4-4 in a case concerning the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. The case involved whether the Tribal Court could hear a claim by a tribal member against a nonmember corporation after an employee allegedly abused a tribal child. The company leased land from the Tribe, held a tribal business license, and participated in an internship program for tribal minors. The alleged abuse occurred on tribal land within tribal territory. The 4-4 tie prevented a definitive ruling on the Tribe's authority to address such a case.

This split vote occurred despite the 1981 ruling in *Montana v. United States*, which stated Tribes can regulate non-Indians who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or whose conduct on nonmember land affects the tribe's political integrity, economic security, or health. The incident in the Choctaw case involved multiple consensual relationships and directly impacted tribal welfare.

More recently, the Court has issued contrasting rulings. In 2020, *McGirt v. Oklahoma* resulted in a 5-4 decision affirming that the Muscogee Reservation in Oklahoma had never been formally disestablished by Congress, meaning it continued to exist. This ruling led to a redefinition of land boundaries in Oklahoma. However, two years later, *Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta* held that states possess concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government over crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country. The *Castro-Huerta* decision, while not directly limiting tribal sovereignty, subjected tribal members to state law in a manner that differed from established legal practice.

The split votes in the *Choctaw*, *Castro-Huerta*, and *McGirt* cases indicate that the historical debate over the status of Indian nations continues to influence the Supreme Court's interpretation of American law, even as other branches of government have increasingly supported tribal sovereignty.