The USfg has sole power over Indigenous affairs and reservations
Stevenson 23 [Dylan Michael Stevenson, Visiting Lecturer, Cornel AAP, bachelor's degree in linguistics from the University of California–Davis with a minor in Native American studies, a master's degree in planning from the University of Southern California with a concentration in preservation and design of the built environment, and has obtained AICP candidate status from the American Planning Association, Prairie Band Potawatomi descent, August 2023, Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in City & Regional Planning, “WATER RITES AND WATER RIGHTS: CHARACTERIZING CULTURAL VALUES IN WATER PLANNING ACTIVITIES ON THE CHEROKEE RESERVATION, BY THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA AND BY THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT”, //zrubin] **language modified**
Chief Justice Marshall explained in his opinion that the right to negotiate and regulate [Indigenous] Indian affairs lay exclusively with the United States Federal government. Through independence from the British Crown, America had inherited this right at the federal level, and this authority did not extend to the individual state governments. Consequently, Georgia has no right or jurisdiction to regulate Indian affairs within Cherokee Nation territory (Worcester v. Georgia, 1832). The Worcester v. Georgia decision develops two significant concepts within Federal Indian Law in the United States. First, it reinforces the Supreme Court’s precedent established in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) that the United States has sole authority to manage and regulate Indian Affairs as part of the guardian-ward relationship of this time.2 Second, it establishes the notion of Tribal Sovereignty as a federally protected right among Tribes within the fledgling Federal Indian Law system at this time.