Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 68

26 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

survey of founding-era usage confirms that the term “Com-
merce,” when describing relations with Indians, took on a 
broader  meaning  than  simple  economic  exchange.    See 
Ablavsky 2015, at 1012–1032 (compiling primary sources); 
Brief for Gregory Ablavsky as Amicus Curiae 8–11; App. to 
id., at 1–18 (same); see also A. Amar, America’s Constitu-
tion:  A Biography 107 (2005).  Instead, the word was used 
as  a  “term  of  art,”  Pearl  322,  to  encompass  all  manner  of 
“bilateral  relations  with  the  [T]ribes,”  Clinton  1995,  at
1145;  see  also  Toler  422  (noting  that  “Indian  commerce” 
was a “legal ter[m] of art” that was “informed by the prac-
ticalities of Indian affairs”). 

This special usage likely emerged out of an international-
law idea widely shared “at the time of the founding”:  When 
dealing with a foreign sovereign, the “commercial and non-
commercial aspects” of bilateral interactions were “inevita-
bly intertwined” because any intercourse carried potential
diplomatic consequences and could even lead to war.  J. Bal-
kin, Commerce, 109 Mich. L. Rev. 1, 25 (2010) (Balkin); see 
also  Ablavsky  2015,  at  1028–1032  (demonstrating  that 
“trade  with  the  Indians  was  understood  almost  solely
through this political and diplomatic lens”); Clinton 1989,
at 362–363 (observing that, at the founding, Indian “trade” 
was “intertwined” with concerns of “peace and diplomacy”
and with the threat of “war”).  Nor was that a speculative
possibility when it came to Tribes.  As we have seen, even 
the  noncommercial  conduct  of  settlers  in  the  early  years
was a “continual source of violent conflict [with] Indians,”
partially  motivating  the  move  away  from  the  Articles  of 
Confederation framework.  M. Fletcher & L. Jurss, Tribal 
Jurisdiction—A Historical Bargain, 76 Md. L. Rev. 593, 597
(2017); see also Ablavsky 2014, at 1033–1038. 

At least two terms in the Commerce Clause confirm this 
special  usage.    For  one  thing,  the  Constitution  speaks  of 
“Commerce  . . .  among”  when  discussing  interstate  deal-
ings, but “Commerce with” when addressing dealings with