## Facts

- Georgia enacted a statute barring non-Indians from residing in Cherokee territory without a state license and an oath to support Georgia’s constitution and laws.
- Samuel A. Worcester, a Vermont citizen and Christian missionary, lived in Cherokee territory with Cherokee consent and under federal authorization.
- Worcester refused to obtain the Georgia license and to take the state loyalty oath.
- Georgia indicted Worcester for residing in Cherokee territory without complying with the licensing and oath requirements.
- Worcester argued Georgia lacked jurisdiction because Cherokee territory was governed by Cherokee and federal authority and because the prosecution conflicted with federal treaties and the federal Trade and Intercourse Act.
- The Georgia superior court rejected his plea, convicted him, and sentenced him to four years’ hard labor.
- Worcester sought U.S. Supreme Court review by writ of error from the state judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Georgia could extend and enforce its criminal laws within Cherokee territory against a U.S. citizen residing there with Cherokee consent and under federal authority.
2. Whether Georgia’s statute was invalid because it conflicted with the U.S. Constitution, federal treaties with the Cherokee Nation, and federal statutes regulating intercourse with Indian tribes.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed Worcester’s conviction.
- The Court held the Georgia statute unconstitutional and void as applied within Cherokee territory.
- The Court concluded Georgia lacked criminal jurisdiction in Cherokee territory and could not punish conduct authorized by Cherokee and federal authority.
- The Court ordered that Worcester be discharged because the state judgment rested on an invalid law.

## Legal Principles

- The Cherokee Nation was treated as a distinct political community occupying its own territory, within which state law has no force absent federal authorization.
- Authority over intercourse and relations with Indian tribes is committed to the federal government by the Constitution and implemented through federal treaties and statutes.
- Federal treaties and statutes governing Indian affairs are supreme over conflicting state laws; state measures that interfere with federally regulated Indian relations are preempted and void.
- A state’s external territorial boundaries do not, by themselves, confer power to regulate or punish conduct within Indian country where tribal and federal authority control.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Georgia could not enforce its licensing-and-oath regime in Cherokee territory because the Constitution assigns Indian affairs to the federal government and because federal treaties and statutes displaced contrary state law, rendering Worcester’s conviction legally invalid.


Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)