What was a case in which the United States Supreme Court vacated the conviction of Samuel Worcester , that is an example of Numerous Supreme Court decisions created important precedents in the extent which tribal powers apply to legal situations?
671c5327907a11a88badb87c792f4355
Indian Country Jurisdiction Indian country jurisdiction, or the extent which tribal powers apply to legal situations in the United States, has undergone many drastic shifts since the beginning of European settlement in America. Over time, federal statutes and Supreme Court rulings have designated more or less power to tribal governments, depending on federal policy toward Indians. Numerous Supreme Court decisions have created important precedents in Indian country jurisdiction, such as "Worcester v. Georgia", "Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe", and "Montana v. United States".
c715c349ab91b64d9400a22d5c69056c
Worcester v. Georgia Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court vacated the conviction of Samuel Worcester and held that the Georgia criminal statute that prohibited non-Native Americans from being present on Native American lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional.
cc760d205cdf4fe6774354c9ce99b488
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Indian Child Welfare Act governed adoptions of Indian children, and a tribal court had jurisdiction over a state court regardless of the location of birth of the child if the child or the natural parents resided on the reservation.
a94364e0d10bcd40ef42c1c5292f12fb
United States v. Thomas (1997) United States v. Grady Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2nd Cir. 1997), was a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that a juror could not be removed from a jury on the ground that the juror was acting in purposeful disregard of the court's instructions on the law, when the record evidence raises a possibility that the juror was simply unpersuaded by the Government's case against the defendants. The case had important implications for secrecy of the jury deliberation process outweighs the ability to dismiss a juror for nullification.
848c125c3392d1f31e24aa5010892aa5
Elkins v. United States Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) , was a US Supreme Court decision that held the "silver platter doctrine", which allowed federal prosecutors to use evidence illegally gathered by state police, to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
7b07d87387cebccd488c194ded46eadc
Jacobson v. Massachusetts Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state.
e1703ee2901326414926057135370261
R v Drybones R v Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282, is a landmark 6-3 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that the "Canadian Bill of Rights" "empowered the courts to strike down federal legislation which offended its dictates." Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Canada held that section 94(b) of the "Indian Act" (which prohibited "Indians" from being intoxicated off of a reserve) is inoperative because it violates section 1(b) of the "Canadian Bill of Rights".
a1116b3a4a1f45000dd2f21da42b8c3c
Downes v. Bidwell Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) , was a case in which the US Supreme Court decided whether US territories were subject to the provisions and protections of the US Constitution. This issue is sometimes stated as whether the Constitution follows the flag. The resulting decision narrowly held that the Constitution did not necessarily apply to territories. Instead, the US Congress had jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly in those dealing with revenue, which would not be allowed by the Constitution for proper states within the Union. It has become known as one of the "Insular Cases".
8565df9aef630931cf7549671ad8cd7e
Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2005), is an important precedent in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the litigation of aboriginal title in the United States. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in "City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York" (2005), a divided panel held that the equitable doctrine of "laches" bars all tribal land claims sounding in ejectment or trespass, for both tribal plaintiffs and the federal government as plaintiff-intervenor.
77255c07f00dc4f08aed44452c8c0d17
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Arizona's taxes that were assessed against a non-Indian contractor that was working exclusively for an Indian tribe on that tribe's reservation were preempted by federal law.
aa533f55f1df282d0417ae6c48246898
Commonwealth v. Jennison Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Nathaniel Jennison was a decisive court case in Massachusetts in 1783 which effectively abolished slavery in that state. It was the third in a series of cases which became known as the "Quock Walker cases".
4be50154310aad6c7c5d0fb9488e5fde
Hodgson v. Bowerbank Hodgson and Thompson v. Bowerbank, 9 U.S. 303 (1809) , was a United States Supreme Court case that held part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. The invalidated portion conferred federal courts jurisdiction to try cases between aliens.
567bdcd0f7db100ade640678c349d653
Stoner v. California Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (1964) , is a United States Supreme Court decision involving the Fourth Amendment. It was a criminal case appealed from the California Courts of Appeal after the California Supreme Court denied review. The case extended the situations under which search warrants are required as they reversed a robbery conviction made on the basis of evidence obtained in violation of the holding.
ee0546b4550d8817e94d31d469cf2703
Arizona v. California Arizona v. California is a set of United States Supreme Court cases, all dealing with disputes over water distribution from the Colorado River between the states of Arizona and California. It also covers the amount of water that the State of Nevada receives from the river as well.
51204fd06852977891e2c0e03682f13c
Narragansett land claim The Narragansett land claim was one of the first litigations of aboriginal title in the United States in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark "Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida" (1974), or "Oneida I", decision. The Narragansett claimed a few thousand acres of land in and around Charlestown, Rhode Island, challenging a variety of early 19th century land transfers as violations of the Nonintercourse Act, suing both the state and private land owners.
83d82130c70bb19c32f1b0dba5e2e5d5
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Peters) 1 (1831) , was a United States Supreme Court case. The Cherokee Nation sought a federal injunction against laws passed by the U.S. state of Georgia depriving them of rights within its boundaries, but the Supreme Court did not hear the case on its merits. It ruled that it had no original jurisdiction in the matter, as the Cherokees were a dependent nation, with a relationship to the United States like that of a "ward to its guardian," as said by Justice Marshall.
fa5362011e2c929ce95f0d395e44a5d1
Menominee Tribe v. United States The Menominee Indian Tribe had entered into a series of treaties with the United States that did not specifically state that they had hunting and fishing rights. In 1961, Congress terminated the tribe's federal recognition, ending its right to govern itself, federal support of health care and education programs, police and fire protection, and tribal rights to land. In 1963, three members of the tribe were charged with violating Wisconsin's hunting and fishing laws on land which had been a reservation for over 100 years. The tribe members were acquitted, but when the state appealed, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the Menominee tribe no longer had hunting and fishing rights because of the termination action by Congress.
180ca187f92be2f0107e9ae3f7846760
Wisconsin v. City of New York Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996) , was a United States Supreme Court case that held that under the Constitution's Census Clause, Congress is granted with the authority to conduct an "actual enumeration" of the American society, chiefly for the purpose of allocating congressional representation among the states.
b9f4769fa885c023cfb50aaa8d8295b2
Public Law 280 Public Law 280 (Pub.L. 83–280 , August 15, 1953, codified as  /1162 § 1162  ,  /1360 § 1360  , and ) is a federal law of the United States establishing "a method whereby States may assume jurisdiction over reservation Indians," as stated in "McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission". 411 U.S. 164, 177 (1973).
c1a5ab8450c26e3f365bf86b34733681
Chase Court The Chase Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1864 to 1873, when Salmon P. Chase served as the sixth Chief Justice of the United States. Chase succeeded Roger Taney as Chief Justice after the latter's death. Chase served as Chief Justice until his death, at which point Morrison Waite was nominated and confirmed as Chase's successor. The Chase Court presided over the end of the Civil War and much of the Reconstruction Era. During the Chase Court, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act 1867, giving the court the ability to issue writs of habeas corpus for defendants tried by state courts. The Chase Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendent for the first time, and its narrow reading of the Amendment would be adopted by subsequent courts.
07a0f49a281dd7024a3033979640d80b
Cohens v. Virginia Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) , was a United States Supreme Court decision most noted for the Court's assertion of its power to review state supreme court decisions in criminal law matters when the defendant claims that their Constitutional rights have been violated. The Court had previously asserted a similar jurisdiction over civil cases involving American parties.
3cfb38afa7f73430925e1cb486d28c05
Klamath Termination Act The Klamath Termination Act was a 1953 law under the US Indian termination policy. The Klamath tribe along with the Flathead, Menominee, Potawatomi, and Turtle Mountain Chippewa, as well as all tribes in the states of California, New York, Florida, and Texas were targeted for immediate termination by House Concurrent Resolution 108 of 1953. The statement which was issued 1 August 1953 by the United States Congress announced the official beginning of the federal Indian termination policy. The tribes that were listed as being ready for immediate termination had been placed on a list prepared by acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs, William Zimmerman, because they met four primary criteria: adequate resources, they had adopted to a certain degree the cultural traits of the larger American culture, they were willing to terminate federal trust obligations, and the state was willing to assume jurisdiction over their criminal and civil matters.