Federal Anti-indian Law: Why a Challenge to “Christian Discovery” Creates a Metaphysical Crisis for the US

“Federal Anti indian Law: Why a Challenge to “Christian Discovery” Creates a Metaphysical Crisis,” an Outcome archive entry by Peter d’Errico. The entry belongs to the jcrt collection and connects readers to scholarship, public history, and organizing around the Doctrine of Discovery, Christian domination, Indigenous sovereignty, law, religion, land, memory, and accountability.

In brief, it addresses Peter d’Errico argues that U.S. anti Indian law rests on Christian Discovery, and that challenging it exposes a metaphysical crisis in U.S. law today.. For readers arriving from the main Doctrine of Discovery site, this post functions as a pointer rather than a replacement for the full Outcome record. The canonical page preserves the complete context, metadata, author information, citation links, media, and neighboring materials in the archive.

The source text highlights terms and contexts including The legal doctrine of “Christian Discovery” remains the foundation of United States federal anti Indian law, yet it is rarely challenged directly in litigation. This essay argues that confronting the doctrine poses not merely a legal challenge but a metaphysical crisis for the United States itself. Through close analysis of the nineteenth century “Marshall Trilogy”— Johnson v. McIntosh , Cherokee Nation v. Georgia , and Worcester v. Georgia —the essay demonstrates that federal Indian law is grounded in an explicit claim of Christian European land appropriation and a corresponding denial of Indigenous sovereignty. The essay critiques common misreadings of these cases that treat dicta about. Read the canonical Outcome page for the complete entry.

Canonical link: https://outcome.doctrineofdiscovery.org/jcrt/issue2/derrico/

Direct link