How did the Court's opinion in the Cherokee Nation case differ from Worcester?

In Cherokee Nation, the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction (the power to hear a case) to review claims of an Indian nation within the United States. In Worcester, the Court ruled that only the United States, and not the individual states, had power to regulate or deal with the Indian nations.

Explanation:

In Cherokee Nation, the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction (the power to hear a case) to review claims of an Indian nation within the United States. In Worcester, the Court ruled that only the United States, and not the individual states, had the power to regulate or deal with the Indian nations.

Explanation:

he believed that congress would be better not dealing with "lobbyists", or people who seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue, since historically, they had problems with these kinds of people. he thought lobbying produces benefits, but should be carefully monitored.

which

like dude you only explained

the problem not the