Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

Lara,  541  U. S.,  at  210  (law  allowing  tribes  to  prosecute
nonmember Indians who committed crimes on tribal land); 
United States v. Bryant, 579 U. S. 140, 142–143 (2016) (law 
criminalizing  domestic  violence 
in  Indian  country); 
Mancari, 417 U. S., at 537 (policy granting Indians employ-
ment preferences); United States v. Antelope, 430 U. S. 641, 
648  (1977)  (law  establishing  a  criminal  code  for  Indian 
country); Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U. S., at 343 (law alter-
ing the boundaries of a reservation); Sunderland v. United 
States, 266 U. S. 226, 231–232 (1924) (agency action remov-
ing the restrictions on alienation of a homestead allotted to 
an  Indian);  Warren  Trading  Post  Co.  v.  Arizona  Tax 
Comm’n, 380 U. S. 685, 691, n. 18 (1965) (law granting tribe 
immunity  from  state  taxation);  United  States  v.  Algoma 
Lumber Co., 305 U. S. 415, 417, 421 (1939) (law regulating 
the sale of timber by an Indian tribe).  Indeed, we have only 
rarely  concluded  that  a  challenged  statute  exceeded  Con-
gress’s power to regulate Indian affairs.  See, e.g., Seminole 
Tribe, 517 U. S., at 72–73. 

Admittedly, our precedent is unwieldy, because it rarely
ties  a  challenged  statute  to  a  specific  source  of  constitu-
tional authority.  That makes it difficult to categorize cases 
and even harder to discern the limits on Congress’s power. 
Still,  we  have  never  wavered  in  our  insistence  that  Con-
gress’s Indian affairs power  “ ‘is not absolute.’ ”   Delaware 
Tribal  Business  Comm.  v.  Weeks,  430  U. S.  73,  84  (1977); 
United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 329 U. S. 40, 54 
(1946) (“The power of Congress over Indian affairs may be 
of a plenary nature; but it is not absolute”); United States v. 
Creek Nation, 295 U. S. 103, 110 (1935) (plenary power is
“subject to limitations inhering in such a guardianship and 
to  pertinent  constitutional  restrictions”).    It  could  not  be 
otherwise—Article I gives Congress a series of enumerated 
powers,  not  a  series  of  blank  checks.    Thus,  we  reiterate 
that Congress’s authority to legislate with respect to Indi-
ans is not unbounded.  It is plenary within its sphere, but