Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 103

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

21 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

1803),  reprinted  in  id.,  at  684.7    All  of  this  makes  sense, 
given that the Founders both wanted to facilitate trade with 
Indians  and  rejected  a  facially  broader  “Indian  affairs” 
power  in  favor  of  a  narrower  power  over  “Commerce  . . . 
with the Indian Tribes.” 

As noted above, that omission was not accidental; the Ar-
ticles of Confederation had contained that “Indian affairs” 
language,  and  that  language  was  twice  proposed  (and  re-
jected)  at  the  Constitutional  Convention.    See  Adoptive 
Couple, 570 U. S., at 662.8  Then, as today, “affairs” was a 
—————— 

7 See  also  Statement  of  T.  Jefferson  to  Congress  (Jan.  18,  1803),  re-
printed in 4 American State Papers 684–685 (Officers may “have confer-
ences with the natives, on the subject of commercial intercourse; get ad-
mission among them for our traders, as others are admitted; [and] agree 
on convenient deposites, for an interchange of articles . . . ”); Statement 
of T. Jefferson to Congress (Jan. 28, 1802), reprinted in id., at 653 (“I lay 
before you the accounts of our Indian trading houses . . . explaining the
effects and the situation of that commerce . . . ”); Statement of S. Sibley
et al.  to  Congress  (Dec.  27,  1811),  reprinted  in  id.,  at  780–782  (in  the 
Northwest Territory, formerly “[t]here was trade and commercial inter-
course; no agriculture,” but “[a]t present, the little commerce which re-
mains is sufficiently safe.  It is agricultural protection which is wanted”); 
Letter  from  J.  Mason  to  W. Eustis  (Jan.  16,  1812),  reprinted  in  id.,  at 
782–784 (“[P]eltries (deer skins) are in most part received from the Indi-
ans . . . .  The market is on the continent of Europe.  Since the obstruc-
tions to our commerce in that quarter, peltries have not only experienced 
a  depression  in  price  . . . ”);  Protest  by  J.  Hendricks,  J.  Jackson,  &  J.
Simms (June 28, 1796), reprinted in id., at 613–614 (“No citizen is to be
permitted to sell, or furnish by gift, spirituous liquors to the Indians, or
to have any commercial traffic with them”); see also Natelson 214–215.
Even one Founder who appears to have used the term more loosely (in
the context of an opinion on the constitutionality of a national bank) fo-
cused only on trade and immigration restrictions.  Letter from E. Ran-
dolph to G. Washington (Feb. 12, 1791), in 7 Papers of George Washing-
ton: Presidential Series 330, 334–335 (D. Twohig ed. 1998) (“The heads
of [the commerce] power with respect to the Indian Tribes are 1. to pro-
hibit the Indians from coming into, or trading within, the United States.
2. to admit them with or without restrictions. 3. to prohibit citizens of 
the United States from trading with them; or 4. to permit with or without 
restrictions”). 

8 To be sure, as respondents point out, the Constitution removed two