Samuel A. Worcester was a missionary who had been living in the Cherokee Nation, which was located within the boundaries of Georgia. He refused to obtain a license from the state of Georgia as required by law and instead argued that he should be exempt due to his status as an American citizen and protected under federal laws. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Worcester, holding that states do not have authority over Native Americans or their lands unless specifically authorized by Congress. Furthermore, they found that Georgia's licensing requirement violated both the Treaty of Hopewell (1785) between the United States government and Cherokees, as well as Article 8 of the Constitution which guarantees citizens protection against infringement on their rights by any state government. This ruling established important precedent for future cases involving tribal sovereignty and set limits on how much power states can exercise over Native American tribes within their borders.

In the case of Samuel A. Worcester v. The State of Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled that a state law requiring non-Native Americans to obtain a license in order to reside on Native American lands was unconstitutional and violated federal treaties with Native American tribes. Chief Justice Marshall wrote for the majority opinion, but Justice McLean dissented from it. He argued that since Indian nations were not considered foreign powers under U.S law, they did not have any power over states or their laws; thus, he believed that Georgia had every right to pass such a law as long as it did not violate any treaty obligations between itself and the United States government regarding those lands. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were some constitutional issues at play here – which he denied – then those should be addressed by Congress rather than through judicial review by this court because Congress is better suited to handle matters involving Indian affairs due to its superior knowledge of them and ability to make more informed decisions about them than judges could ever do so alone without proper guidance from legislators themselves