Abstract
This article explores the impact of John Locke’s Two Treatises on United States Indigenous property rights jurisprudence. After discussing Locke’s arguments, the article turns to the rationales of the first and last cases of the Marshall Trilogy—Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832)—arguing that, contrary to prevailing political theory, Marshall’s opinion for the Court in Johnson puts forth a fundamentally Lockean justification for the dispossession of Indigenous property. This article also provides a brief analysis of Marshall’s explicit Vattelian rationale in Worcester, commentary on recent developments regarding the precedents, and recommendations for reconciling them within contemporary jurisprudence.
Recommended Citation
Hobert, Anthony W. PhD
(2024)
"LOCKE’S “WILD INDIAN” IN UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE,"
American Indian Law Journal: Vol. 12:
Iss.
2, Article 1.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/ailj/vol12/iss2/1
Included in
Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Common Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Contracts Commons, Courts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Water Law Commons