Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 89.0

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

7 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

upheaval at home, J. Marshall, The Life of George Wash-
ington  313–316  (R.  Faulkner  &  P.  Carrese  eds.  2000). 
Peace  with  the  Indians,  rather  than  conflicts  sparked  by 
unscrupulous traders, was imperative.  Prucha 46. 

The Articles of Confederation aimed to meet that need in 
part  by  giving  Congress  “the  sole and  exclusive  right  and 
power of . . . regulating the trade and managing all affairs
with  the  Indians.”  Art. IX,  cl. 4.    However,  that  broad 
power came with two limitations: First, the Indians could
not be “members of any of the states.”  Ibid.  And, second, 
“the  legislative  right  of  any  state  within  its  own  limits
[could not] be infringed or violated.”  Ibid.  In part because
of those limitations, the Articles’ solution proved to be less 
than ideal.  As James Madison would later write, the two 
limits  were  “obscure  and  contradictory”;  the  new  Nation
had “not yet settled” on which Indians were “members” of a
State or which state “legislative right[s]” could not be “in-
fringe[d].”  The Federalist No. 42, pp. 268–269 (C. Rossiter 
ed.  1961).2    More  broadly,  the  Confederation  Congress 
lacked any  robust authority to enforce congressional laws
or treaties (in this or any other domain).  For example, it
had no power to make laws supreme over state law; there 
was  no  executive  power  independent  of  the  States;  and
state officers were not bound by oath to support the Arti-
cles. 

Under the Articles, Congress entered treaties with vari-
ous tribes and sought to maintain a mostly peaceful rela-
tionship  with  the  Indians—but  its  authority  was  under-
mined at every turn.  See Prucha 44–50.  Again and again,
Congress  entered  treaties  with  Indians  that  established
boundary  lines  and  lands  set  apart  for  the  Indians,  and 

—————— 

2 For example, though it was not exactly settled what it meant for an 
Indian  to  be  a  “member”  of  a  State,  the  definition  often  turned  on 
whether the Indian paid taxes in or was a citizen of that State.  Adoptive 
Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U. S. 637, 662, n. 2 (2013) (THOMAS, J., concur-
ring).