Book contents
- Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions
- Feminist Judgments Series
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments Series
- Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions
- Notes on Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- About the Cover Art
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Allocation of Rights
- 4 Commentary on Johnson v. M’Intosh
- 5 Commentary on Botiller v. Dominguez
- 6 Commentary on Pierson v. Post
- Part III Patents, Publicity Rights, and Trademarks
- Part IV Condemnation and Adverse Possession
- Part V Gifts and Future Interests
- Part VI Tenancy in Common, Joint Tenancy, and Tenancy by the Entirety
- Part VII Exclusionary Zoning
- Part VIII Evictions
- Part IX Landlord–Tenant Premises Liability
- Index
4 - Commentary on Johnson v. M’Intosh
from Part II - Allocation of Rights
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 October 2021
Book contents
- Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions
- Feminist Judgments Series
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments Series
- Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions
- Notes on Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- About the Cover Art
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Allocation of Rights
- 4 Commentary on Johnson v. M’Intosh
- 5 Commentary on Botiller v. Dominguez
- 6 Commentary on Pierson v. Post
- Part III Patents, Publicity Rights, and Trademarks
- Part IV Condemnation and Adverse Possession
- Part V Gifts and Future Interests
- Part VI Tenancy in Common, Joint Tenancy, and Tenancy by the Entirety
- Part VII Exclusionary Zoning
- Part VIII Evictions
- Part IX Landlord–Tenant Premises Liability
- Index
Summary
Johnson v. M’Intosh1 is the first case in Chief Justice John Marshall’s trilogy of Indian law opinions.2 Two centuries later, these decisions remain the foundation of the legal, political, and sovereign status of Indian tribes within the United States. While concluding that both the property rights and sovereign powers of Indigenous nations are inferior to the property rights and sovereign powers of Christian European nations, Johnson specifically held that “Indians”3 lack the right to fully alienate their lands to anyone other than the United States government.4
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions , pp. 35 - 60Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021