guardianship

What happened

In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), Chief Justice Marshall wrote that the relation of tribes to the United States "resembles that of a ward to his guardian." The image was meant to describe dependence on federal protection. In United States v. Kagama (1886), the Court went further. It said the Indian tribes "are spoken of as 'wards of the nation,' 'pupils,' as local dependent communities," and that from their "very weakness and helplessness, so largely due to the course of dealing of the Federal Government with them and the treaties in which it has been promised, there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power."

The framing has two edges. One edge is control: the Court used the guardian image to support broad federal authority over tribes. The other is duty. In Seminole Nation v. United States (1942), the Court held that in carrying out its treaty obligations the Government "is something more than a mere contracting party," and "has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust," to be judged "by the most exacting fiduciary standards."

Recent cases limit what the duty means. In United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation (2011), the Court held that the fiduciary exception to attorney-client privilege "does not apply to the general trust relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes." In Arizona v. Navajo Nation (2023), it held that the 1868 treaty reserved necessary water but "did not require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe."

The Court's guardian language reflects the era's assumptions and is quoted here as law, not as the atlas's view.

Summarized with AI assistance from 5 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error