Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 64

22 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

tion was praised by many and criticized by some.  Federal-
ists (such as James Madison) applauded the fact that the 
new federal government would be “unfettered” by the Arti-
cles’ constraints.  The Federalist No. 42, p. 268 (C. Rossiter 
ed.  1961).  Certain  Anti-Federalists  (including  Abraham 
Yates Jr.) disfavored the “tota[l] surrender into the hands 
of Congress [of] the management and regulation of the In-
dian affairs.”  Letter to Citizens of New York (June 13–14, 
1788), in 20 Documentary History of the Ratification of the 
Constitution 1153, 1158 (J. Kaminski et al. eds. 2004) (em-
phasis added).  At bottom, however, no one questioned that
the Constitution took a view about where the power to man-
age Indian affairs would reside in the future.  And no one 
doubted  that  it  selected  the  federal  government,  not  the 
States. 

Early  practice  confirmed  this  understanding.    “The 
Washington  Administration  insisted  that  the  federal  gov-
ernment  enjoyed  exclusive  constitutional  authority”  over
managing relationships with the Indian Tribes.  Ablavsky
2015, at 1019.  As President Washington put it, the federal
government “possess[ed] the only authority of regulating an
intercourse  with  [the  Tribes],  and  redressing  their  griev-
ances.”  Letter to T. Mifflin (Sept. 4, 1790), in 6 The Papers 
of George Washington: Presidential Series 396 (D. Twohig 
ed.  1996)  (emphasis  added).    Even  “many  state  officials
agreed”  with  President  Washington’s  assessment.    Ablav-
sky 2015, at 1019.  South Carolina Governor Charles Pinck-
ney  acknowledged  that  “the  sole  management  of  India[n] 
affairs” is “committed” to “the general Government.”  Letter 
to  G.  Washington  (Dec.  14,  1789),  in  4  Papers  of  George 
Washington: Presidential Series 404 (D. Twohig ed. 1996).
Other leading proponents of States’ rights reluctantly drew 
the  same  conclusion.  “[U]nder  the  present  Constitution,” 
Thomas Jefferson lamented, States lack any “right to Treat
with the Indians without the consent of the General Gov-
ernment.”  Letter to H. Knox (Aug. 10, 1791), in 22 Papers