Worcester v. Georgia (1832) found that statutory jurisdiction of native lands was the sole right of the federal government, according to Touro College Law Center. This was a significant case for federalism, which held that states did not have the power to pass laws governing Native Americans.Know More
The case of Worcester v. Georgia was the last of three cases involving tribal sovereignty under the Marshall Court, as explained by the American Bar Association. In a time of political upheaval regarding tribal sovereignty during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court issued three rulings narrowing power over tribal lands. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the only two entities with the power to create laws involving tribal lands included the tribe itself and the federal government. Native Americans living on tribal lands did not have to pay state taxes or abide by state law.
The Georgia legislature passed a law requiring non-Native Americans on tribal lands to acquire a license. Two missionaries refused to obtain a license and lived on Cherokee land in Georgia, Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute notes. The state arrested them and found them in violation of state law. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a writ of error stating the opinion of the court from the precedence of two previous tribal sovereignty cases.Learn more about Law
Commonwealth v. Hunt established the right of trade unions to exist. It also established legal precedent for the union requirement of closed shops. Before this ruling, union members were viewed as conspirators working against capitalism.Full Answer >
In 1962, Baker v. Carr established that the federal courts had jurisdiction to intervene in voter redistricting. The plaintiff lived in Tennessee, which had not redrawn its legislative districts since 1901. The state was required to redistrict every 10 years according to population, and the lack of redistricting diluted the representation of citizens in urban areas.Full Answer >
In 1954, the landmark Hernandez vs. Texas case established Mexican-Americans as a separate class from whites and African-Americans, according to the Texas State Historical Association. The Supreme Court ruling challenged judicial discrimination against Mexicans by citing the 14th Amendment to prevent Hernandez from being convicted by an all-white jury.Full Answer >
In 1965, Miranda v. Arizona created a specific set of procedures for police interrogations and evidence, according to the Oyez Project. The case was one of a series involving protections for the accused found in the Fifth Amendment.Full Answer >