Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 4 - Commentary on Johnson v. M’Intosh

  • from Part II - Allocation of Rights
  • Edited by Eloisa C. Rodriguez-Dod, Elena Maria Marty-Nelson
  • Book:
    Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Property Opinions
    Published online:
    21 October 2021
    Print publication:
    28 October 2021, pp 35-60

  • 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