Which statement about Worcester v. Georgia (1832) is accurate?

Which statement about Worcester v. Georgia (1832) is accurate?

• A. The Cherokee nation possesses full sovereignty that cannot be infringed by the state.
• B. Removal of the Cherokees is unconstitutional.
• C. The Cherokee Indians constituted a nation holding distinct sovereign powers.
• D. Georgia had jurisdiction to regulate tribal lands.

Answer: (C)

Worcester v. Georgia clarifies how Native nations fit into the U.S. constitutional framework: the Cherokee Nation is treated as a distinct political community with its own government and legal system, possessing sovereign powers within its territory. That description matches the statement that the Cherokee Indians constituted a nation holding distinct sovereign powers, which is why it is the best answer. The decision underscored that state governments cannot regulate or enforce laws within Cherokee lands, reflecting the limited but real sovereignty of tribes that exists alongside federal authority and treaties. The other ideas—that the Cherokees have unlimited sovereignty over all state action, that removal is unconstitutional, or that Georgia could regulate tribal lands—do not align with what the Court held in this case.

Worcester v. Georgia clarifies how Native nations fit into the U.S. constitutional framework: the Cherokee Nation is treated as a distinct political community with its own government and legal system, possessing sovereign powers within its territory. That description matches the statement that the Cherokee Indians constituted a nation holding distinct sovereign powers, which is why it is the best answer. The decision underscored that state governments cannot regulate or enforce laws within Cherokee lands, reflecting the limited but real sovereignty of tribes that exists alongside federal authority and treaties. The other ideas—that the Cherokees have unlimited sovereignty over all state action, that removal is unconstitutional, or that Georgia could regulate tribal lands—do not align with what the Court held in this case.