Marshall’s opinion governs aboriginal title mainly through dicta, not binding holding

Evidence

The case is one of the most influential and well-known decisions of the Marshall Court, a fixture of the firstyear curriculum in nearly all U.S. law schools. Marshall’s opinion lays down the foundations of the doctrine of aboriginal title in the United States, and the related doctrine of discovery. However, the vast majority of the opinion is dicta; as valid title is a basic element of the cause of action for ejectment, the holding does not extend to the validity of McIntosh’s title, much less the property rights of the Piankeshaw. Thus, all that the opinion holds with respect to aboriginal title is that it is inalienable, a principle that remains well-established law in nearly all common law jurisdictions. — Wikipedia contributors, Johnson v. McIntosh, 6

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: The celebrated case that supposedly settled Native land title actually resolved almost nothing beyond inalienability, because the holding is technically buried in dicta — a nice case study in how legal ‘landmarks’ function mostly as rhetoric.
• XREF: Connects to the doctrine of discovery and to the Marshall Trilogy (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Worcester v. Georgia).
• SHARE: Perfect for a law-school friend who loves the gap between what a case is famous for and what it actually holds.