The Chickamauga Nation logo.
categories
Agriculture
Congress and Senate
Cultural Preservation
Education
Genocide
History
Humor
Legal
Mobilian Trade Language
NDN NEWS
PROOF
Podcasting
Public Announcements
TCN.DIGITAL.PRESS
TCNPress.Org
The Chickamauga Nation
Today in Chickamauga History
Treaties
authors
Attakullakulla's Ghost
Chief Jimmie W. Kersh
Chief Richard Botts
Chuck Allen
Dr. Chief Christopher Spruell
Dr. Michelle Spruell
Duwali's Ghost
Prince of Notoly's Ghost
The Chickamauga Nation
The Chickamauga Nation - TCN
publicationHISTORY

Understanding Native American Citizenship and the Supreme Court

The Chickamauga Nation

March 1, 2025
/
Legal

Understanding Native American Citizenship and the Supreme Court

‍

First, the current 6-3 split on the Supreme Court, with Contextual Originalists forming the majority, should give a glimpse into how the Court will rule on Birthright Citizenship for Native Americans.  Contextual Originalists interpret the Constitution from the Canons of Construction based on the Original Intent of the Constitution, Treaty, or Law not by current social and political morays.
Given the Marshall Trilogy of Cases: Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia (1832), it is unlikely this Supreme Court will overturn 200 years of Stare Decisis concerning the enshrinement of the Doctrine of Discovery against Native Americans.  Further, it is even more unlikely that the Supreme Court will override Elks v Wilkins 1884, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Native Americans must first demonstrate allegiance to their Tribe because they are not constitutionally US Citizens.  So where does that leave Native Americans concerning Citizenship?
Many will go to the 14th Amendment, which was rejected in Elks v Wilkins 1884, and the Contextual Originalists will also reject it because of the specific wording of the 14th Amendment Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in its original context goes back to its British Common Law roots requiring both parents to be Citizens under the country's jurisdiction. Therefore, that is why Elks v Wilkins was rejected in 1884 and will be rejected by the Contextual Originalists on the current Court.
Finally, many will place their hope in the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act to provide US Citizenship to Native Americans.  “AN ACT To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue certificates of
Citizenship to Indians.”  “BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and house of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.”
The Act seems relatively straightforward, but it is not. The first part requires the Issuance of Certificates of Citizenship, which never happened.  Does this nullify the Act according to the requirement never being met by the United States?  What is the Original Intent of the Congress?  Was it to make Indians citizens of the United States or to issue citizenship certificates?  The Marshall Trilogy, the Doctrine of Discovery, and Elks v Wilkins cloud the issue.  
Following the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, the Supreme Court must ultimately reject the Marshall Trilogy, the Doctrine of Discovery, and Elks v Wilkins and turn US Indian policy on its head.  The Supreme Court may reject the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act and force Congress to readdress the underlying Constitutional issues raised by dismantling 200 years of American Indian Policy.
We must wait for the court to rule on these issues in the next few years in late June or early July.  Until then, all Native Americans are in limbo.

‍

publicationhistory
All past, present and future claims or assertions of Chickamauga history, written or spoken, including but not limited to biographies, curriculum vitae, lectures or any other reference not listed herein, are deemed fraudulent by The Chickamauga Nation. The use of the image of the Ancient Axe of Authority© is used by expressed written consent of its creator and copyright holder, Dr. Michelle Spruell.

All content on this website is protected by copyright and is the intellectual property of The Chickamauga Nation. Use of the image of the Ancient Axe of Authority and text on this website without the expressed written consent of The Chickamauga Nation is strictly forbidden.

PUBLIC NOTICE: The Chickamauga Nation and its Citizens declare that any and all entities who profess or claim Cherokee identity inclusive of Citizens and members of said entities in any and all forms are determined to be persona non grata to The Chickamauga Nation. Persona non grata status extends to any and all entities, citizens, members, or diplomats without initiation or provocation of litigation. Persona non grata status extends to but is not limited to the Government of The Chickamauga Nation, Culture of The Chickamauga Nation, Religion of The Chickamauga Nation, History of The Chickamauga Nation, Identity of The Chickamauga Nation, Relationship of other tribes with The Chickamauga Nation, and shall not affect the relationship of The Chickamauga Nation with the United States government or agencies thereof, including other tribes and nations not mentioned.

DISCLAIMER FOR ALL FUTURE PUBLICATIONS: In lieu of providing repetitive academically verified documentation as requested by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on July 18, 2019, The Chickamauga Nation hereby give notice that beginning on January 1, 2022 all future publications are presented using the research which has been academically verified by professionals in the fields of history and anthropology.
© 2022 The Chickamauga Nation. All rights reserved.