Implications of the Case
This was the first case in the history of the Supreme Court in which a state law had been invalidated. The decision of this case enforced the Constitution's superiority over state laws. The Supreme Court had, for the first time, decided that based on an article of the Constitution a state's law wasn't allowed.
This case also had negative implications for Native Americans. Part of Fletcher's argument had been that Georgia didn't have the right to the land claims in the first place. By ruling in favor or Peck, the Supreme Court also implied that the Native Americans didn't have a right to their own land. They didn't directly state this, but by ruling for Peck the Court ruled that Georgia did have ownership of the land. This paved the way for the future conflicts with and taking of land from the Native Americans.
This case also had negative implications for Native Americans. Part of Fletcher's argument had been that Georgia didn't have the right to the land claims in the first place. By ruling in favor or Peck, the Supreme Court also implied that the Native Americans didn't have a right to their own land. They didn't directly state this, but by ruling for Peck the Court ruled that Georgia did have ownership of the land. This paved the way for the future conflicts with and taking of land from the Native Americans.
Future Cases
Until the case Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge 17 years later, the Supreme Court followed a strict interpretation of the contract clause. The implications of a contract's value, and that they cannot be revoked or changed at will, was an effect of Fletcher v Peck that lasted over a century. This largely limited how states could regulate corporations. Eventually, during the great depression, the Court ruled differently in a case, saying that contracts can be constitutionally altered, so long as the alterations are clearly related to protecting public welfare.