Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 80

38 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

how non-Indians (States and private individuals) may en-
gage with Indians.  And, as we have seen, that falls in the 
heartland  of  Congress’s  constitutional  authority.    Recall 
that  the  very  first  Congresses  punished  non-Indians  who
“commit[ted] any crime upon [any] friendly Indian.”  Act of 
July  22,  1790,  ch.  33,  §5,  1  Stat.  138.    ICWA  operates  in
much the same way.  The mass removal of Indian children 
by States and private parties, no less than a pattern of crim-
inal trespasses by States and private parties, directly inter-
feres with tribal intercourse.  More than that, it threatens 
the Tribes’ “political existence.”  Worcester, 6 Pet., at 536. 
And at the risk of stating the obvious, Indian commerce is
hard to maintain if there are no Indian communities left to 
do commerce with. 

IV 

Often, Native American Tribes have come to this Court 
seeking justice only to leave with bowed heads and empty
hands.  But that is not because this Court has no justice to
offer  them.  Our  Constitution  reserves  for  the  Tribes  a 
place—an  enduring  place—in  the  structure  of  American
life.  It promises them sovereignty for as long as they wish 
to keep it.  And it secures that promise by divesting States 
of  authority  over  Indian  affairs  and  by  giving  the  federal
government  certain  significant  (but  limited  and  enumer-
ated) powers aimed at building a lasting peace.  In adopting
the Indian Child Welfare Act, Congress exercised that law-
ful authority to secure the right of Indian parents to raise 
their families as they please; the right of Indian children to
grow in their culture; and the right of Indian communities
to resist fading into the twilight of history.  All of that is in 
keeping with the Constitution’s original design.