Did the supreme court make correct ruling regarding the lands occupied by cherokee

There are two cases that this question can refer to:

First, the case Cherokee Nations v. Georgia (1831). In this case, the Cherokee Nation sought a federal injunction against the state of Georgia. This was done with the Cherokee nation considering itself a "foreign state." The court ruled that the Cherokee nation was not an independent state, and therefore the Court had no original jurisdiction in the matter.

The second case is that of Worcester v. Georgia (1832). This case ruled that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign. Therefore, the state of Georgia could not enforce state laws in its territory. However, President Andrew Jackson decided not to uphold this ruling.

I believe the court was right in both cases. In the first case, it is most likely true that the Court did not have original jurisdiction in the case. The case should have gone through a lower court first, as the Cherokee Nation was considered part of Georgia. However, the second case was also right, as it reconsidered the status of the Cherokee and granted them a status that better reflected their position within the country.

wait history, who want to talk about history, boring.

“i think it is very plausible that if there are five votes to end the death penalty, it could be with the people who are on the court right now,” - smith

so basically it is not clearly and consistently imposed