United States

• Cherokee Nation v Georgia, 1831
• CITE: 30 U.S. 1
• This was the first case in which the United States Supreme Court discussed Indian sovereignty. The Cherokee Nation was trying to prevent Georgia from imposing its state laws within the Cherokee Territory. Marshall ruled that a tribe of Indians within the borders of the United States could not sue to prevent the state of Georgia from attempting to destroy it. Marshall concluded that the Cherokees did not constitute a "foreign nation", but were more accurately described as "domestic dependent nations". This case operated to diminish the status of tribes as sovereigns in the United States

• Worcester v Georgia, 1832
• CITE: 31 U.S. 515
• In this case, Georgia’s attempt to impose its laws on the Cherokee Nation was challenged . A non-Indian was arrested for living within Cherokee Territory without permission from state authorities. The Supreme Court overturned Worcester’s conviction and declared the state law requiring such permission unconstitutional. The court relied on the constitutional doctrine that the regulation of Indian affairs was granted to the Federal government rather than the states. In this opinion the court recognized that Indian nations were "distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries." The court’s statement supporting Indian sovereignty is still referred to in cases today.

• Ex Parte Crow Dog, 1883
• CITE: 109 U.S. 556
• In this case the Supreme Court held that only an Indian government could punish an Indian for committing a crime against another Indian. This decision exemplifies the Supreme Court’s recognition of Indian sovereignty. The court pointed out that under the 1834 Trade and Intercourse Act, Indian nations retained authority over their domestic affairs, including the punishment of members of the tribe who violated tribal law.

• United States v Kagama, 1886
• CITE: 118 U.S. 375
• In this case the validity of the Major Crimes Act was challenged. The Act authorized federal jurisdiction over certain crimes including murder, rape, and robbery committed by an Indian against another Indian in Indian territory. As a result of this Act, Indian nations sovereign power to make and enforce its own laws was limited. The Supreme Court upheld the law. The court relied on the "guardian-ward" relationship between the United States and Indian nations to support the power of Congress over Indian nations. The court also noted that Indian nations were "dependent on the United States for their political rights" and denied that Indian nations were sovereign at all.

• Lone Wolf v Hitchcock, 1903
• CITE: 187 U.S. 553
• In this case the Supreme Court ignored the sovereignty of Indian nations and upheld the plenary power of Congress over Indian affairs. This case is a particularly famous example of bad Indian law in the story of Indian rights. The court’s opinion states: " Plenary authority over the tribal relations of Indians has been exercised by Congress from the beginning, and the power has always been deemed a political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the government." This decision left Congress free to exercise whatever power it wished over Indian nations and it was left like this for several decades.

• Iron Crow v Oglala Sioux Tribe, 1956
• CITE: 231 F.2d 89
• This case recognized the inherent sovereignty of Indian nations. The court expressly recognized that pursuant to the Constitution, Indian nations were recognized as sovereign governments which possess all the inherent rights of sovereignty except where Congress has specifically restricted their power.

• Williams v Lee, 1959
• CITE: 358 U.S. 217
• Here, the Supreme Court once again recognized the sovereignty of Indian nations. It held that "to allow the exercise of state jurisdiction here would undermine the authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs and would infringe on the right of the Indians to govern themselves." The court expressed that internal affairs of the Indians remained exclusively within the jurisdiction of tribal governments and that their sovereign power has not been limited by Congress.

• McClanahan v Arizona Tax Commission, 1973
• CITE: 411 U.S. 164
• The Supreme Court held that Arizona could not impose its state income tax on a reservation Indian who earned her entire income on the reservation. The court said that the federal government has recognized the Indian nations as sovereign and that Congress has the responsibility for dealing with sovereign Indian nations, not the states.

    Canadian case law has been obscure until recent history. The courts in Canada traditionally gave full support to the Parliament’s power to assume responsibility for the care of Natives. The courts had jurisdiction to delineate the scope of the aboriginal property rights. Until the 1970’s, as a matter of public policy, Canada refused to recognize native title or self-government derived from historic occupation and possession of lands to British and Canadian Rule. As a result, Canada embraced the early rulings of the Marshall court which emphasized plenary power over Indian nations and limited sovereignty. With a few exceptions, it wasn’t until 1973 that Canada began to generate important case law of its own relating to the sovereignty of native nations.

• St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Company v The Queen, 1889
• CITE: 14 App. Cas.46
• This case attempted to answer the question of whether the Royal Proclamation of1763 represents the exclusive source of aboriginal rights in Canada. This case stated that the Proclamation was the sole source of aboriginal rights in Canada

• Regina v Koonungnak, 1964
• CITE: 42 C.R. 143
• This case expressly affirmed the rights announced by the Royal Proclamation of 1763

• Calder v Attorney-General of British Columbia, 1973
• CITE: 1 S.C.R. 313
• In this case the Court held that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 did not extend to British Columbia and that there can be no judicial recognition of aboriginal rights in the absence of legislative or executive recognition of such title. This is the single most famous case in Canadian case law, as it resulted in upheaval throughout the country. The decision in this case runs contrary to the governmental policy employed by Canada throughout its history.

• Sparrow v The Queen
• CITE: 1 S.C.R. 1110
• This case interpreted the 1982 amendment to the Canadian Constitution and established that the Canadian federal government may not infringe aboriginal and treaty rights without strong justification. According to the court., the government’s substantial obligation to native peoples requires judicial strict scrutiny of national legislation to ensure that it meets the Crown’s honorable duties. This decision finally put to rest the substance and scope of the Royal Proclamation of 1763.