Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 97.0

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

15 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

The States accordingly enacted numerous laws to regu-
late Indians within their territorial boundaries, as well as 
those  Indians’  interactions  with  the  States’  citizens.    See, 
e.g.,  D.  Rosen,  American  Indians  and  State  Law  34,  52 
(2007) (Rosen).  For example, New York passed laws forbid-
ding its citizens from suing to enforce contracts with Indi-
ans who lived on Indian lands, and Virginia regulated the 
sale of land held by Indians.  See Laws of the Colonial and 
State Governments, Relating to Indians and Indian Affairs,
From 1633 to 1831, pp. 65–67, 158–159 (1832).  Massachu-
setts authorized its Governor to appoint guardians to over-
see Indians and their property, while Ohio and Indiana for-
bade the sale of liquor to Indians.  Id., at 21–22, 232–234. 

On  the  whole,  States  also  generally  applied  both  their 
civil  and  criminal  laws  to  Indians,  with  many  extending
their criminal laws to all Indians anywhere in the State—
including,  sometimes,  on  Indian  reservations  within  the 
State.  See  Rosen  53;  see  also,  e.g.,  Goodell  v.  Jackson  ex 
dem.  Smith,  20  Johns.  693  (N. Y.  Ct.  Corr.  Errors  1823); 
State v. Doxtater, 47 Wis. 278, 2 N. W. 439 (1879) (collecting 
cases).  To be sure, some of these laws may have conflicted 
with valid federal treaties or statutes on point, and courts 
at the time often did not precisely demarcate the constitu-
tional  boundaries  between  state  and  federal  authority. 
Rosen 55–56.4  But, when opponents of the Trade and In-
tercourse  Acts’  criminal  provisions  complained  that  state 

—————— 

4 The Constitution expressly denied certain powers to States, including
the power to “enter into any Treaty,” but it is silent on States’ relation-
ship with Indians.  See Art. I, §10; see also Letter from T. Jefferson to H. 
Knox (Aug. 10, 1791), in 22 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 27 (C. Cullen ed. 
1986) (noting that States lack “a right to Treat with the Indians”).  To be 
sure, in 1832, this Court held that Georgia could not extend its laws over
the territory held by the Cherokee Nation.  See Worcester v. Georgia, 6 
Pet. 515.  However, that opinion “yielded to closer analysis,” and Indian
reservations have since been treated as part of the State they are within. 
See Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 5)
(internal quotation marks omitted).