Tribal Sovereignty Argumentative Analysis

The word sovereignty, as defined by Merriam-Webster, contains three necessary descriptors: One, it must have “supreme power especially over a body politic.” Two, it must have autonomy, or “freedom from external control.” And, three, it must have “controlling influence” (“Sovereignty”). The path toward tribal sovereignty for Native American nations has been and continues to be a rough one. From the beginnings of colonialism to the founding of the United States and onto the present day, there have been both positive and negative alterations made to the idea of Native American tribal sovereignty. Before Europeans landed in what would later be known as North America, the indigenous tribes had complete sovereignty over the lands and people. However, the new settlers believed this not to be true. The Doctrine of Discovery is a principle held by European governments and their colonists. The doctrine stated that British colonists in the Age of Discovery owned the land that they settled. This “ownership” of the land was transferred to the new American government and its people once they declared …show more content…
In the Supreme Court case Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (2016), the legal issue was over whether or not a tribe has civil sovereignty over corporations that partnered with the tribe within their jurisdiction. The Supreme Court justices were split (the decision occurred after Justice Scalia has passed away and before his replacement was approved, so there was an even number of justices) and thus the decision went down to the lower court, which found a tribe to have sovereignty over civil cases involving corporations but not nonmember employees. However, because the Supreme Court effectively did not make a decision in the case no precedent was set. Still, many questions about sovereignty exist. It is this vast legal gray area that many these issues occur