1790 Trade and Intercourse Acts or Nonintercourse Acts (1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834)
1823 Johnson v. M’Intosh
1831 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
1832 Worcester v. Georgia
1834 Indian Removal Act
1871 Future treaties with Indian tribes (25 U.S.C. §71)
1885 Major Crimes Act
1886 US v. Kagama
1887 General Allotment Act or the Dawes Act
1934 Indian Reorganization Act
1953 Public Law 83-280

Since the beginnings of European settlement of the Americas, the question of land use, land ownership, and sovereignty have been at the heart of many political questions. Today there are 565 federally recognized Native tribes and many other unrecognized communities for whom these questions are paramount.

Initially, of course, Indigenous peoples posed the only semblance of a claim to these lands, but over time, through political maneuvers, treaties, court cases, and congressional laws tribal control of the land diminished. Today Natives control a mere 2 percent of the US lands that were once their homes .

Beginning in 1790, the United States federal government began to define a political arrangement between the American State and Indian tribes that largely resulted in a policy of assumed sovereignty so long as tribes stayed within their bounds. The Trade and Intercourse Acts or Nonintercourse Acts (1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834) not only defined a relationship between the US federal government and tribes, but in an effort to define and control trade, they alluded to ‘Indian Country,’ lands controlled by Indians, seemingly outside the formal United States Indian Country has come to be defined as all Indian reservations, all dependent communities, as well as all restricted lands and lands held in trust . This essentially left the question of sovereignty alone so long as the boundaries of Indian Country were upheld, which with the increasing conflict over land use in the south did not last long.

In 1823 Chief Justice John Marshall decided the first of three cases which would set the basis for Indian policy for generations. In Johnson v. M’Intosh Marshall used the ‘doctrine of discovery’ to justify the supreme legal title of Indian lands belonging to the US and tribes holding simply a right to occupation. This did not directly mean that tribes were not separate nations, simply that they could not hold the right to ownership of their lands .

Treaties between the US Federal government could be seen as a recognition of the sovereignty of Indian tribes. However, in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia tribal sovereignty was diminished as the supreme court decided tribes were not in fact foreign nations but ‘domestic dependent nations’ . Clearly establishing a dependency on the United States and decreasing claims to sovereignty over their lands. Then a year later in Worcester v. Georgia the court put Indian tribes in a limbo between the Federal Government’s level of sovereignty and the state of Georgia’s, stating that tribes must be in compliance with federal law but that states do not have power over Indian lands . This would lead the way for casino enterprises to exist on tribal lands in the future.

As conflict in the South came to a head Congress passed the Indian Removal Act in 1834, which specifically made a path for President Andrew Jackson to ‘negotiate’ with tribes for their removal west of the Mississippi. Treaties were often forced on tribes by the government and were regularly broken. The military was brought in to enforce reservation life.

The next big blow to Native land and sovereignty rights came in 1871, when 25 U.S.C. §71. Future treaties with Indian tribes passed. It prohibits the government from making any treaties with tribal governments, meaning they can lay no claim to being an independent nation, and it means that the government has full control over all tribes and tribal lands .

Congress passed the Major Crimes Act in 1885, which took advantage of federal governmental control within tribal boundaries to create laws over tribes within their own lands. In 1886 US v. Kagama upheld the act, giving the government plenary power, or complete and absolute power over Indian tribes and Natives themselves, with or without their consent .

In 1887, the US government took full advantage of their declared legal right inside tribal lands and passed the General Allotment Act , also known as the Dawes Act. The GAA took reservation lands that were previously held communally by a tribe and parcelled them out into individual lots in order to force natives into white agrarian society. It also allowed for non-indians to purchase leftover lands as well as lands owned by indians after 25 years, which resulted in millions of acres of lost land. By 1934 two-thirds of the 150 million acres that tribes owned going into the GAA were gone .

The GAA allowed states access inside of reservations. While they still had no power over Natives, it did give them power over all non-indian owned lands and all non-trust held lands . The land dispersal of Natives and non-Natives together resulted in a checkerboarding of various land status held side by side, confusing jurisdiction between Native, non-Native, federal, and state ownership and complicating legal governing bodies .

The government also took to disbanding tribal governments and exerting more control with their bureaucratic bodies until 1934 and the Indian Reorganization Act. The IRA would end the allotment policy and attempt to restore some native land and create economic development on tribal lands as well as to restructure tribal governments . To become an IRA tribe, however, the new laws and constitution had to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. This continues to cause conflict in many tribes between traditionalists and the newer government systems .

Even after these new governments were implemented, Congress enacted Public Law 83-280 which came about during the termination era, the era in which the government removed and terminated federal recognition and reservations for some tribes. PL 280 allowed the six states to which it applied to intervene and prosecute on tribal lands in cases of lawlessness. This of course increased the state's’ power over tribes and decreased the tribal claim to governing their own lands.