Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 99.0

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

17 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

“commerce” with the Indian tribes.  Ibid.  Indeed, Justice 
McLean  asked,  if  Congress  could  enact  this statute,  “why 
may not [C]ongress legislate on crimes for the states gener-
ally?”  Id.,  at  940.  He  concluded  that  Congress  “trans-
cended their constitutional powers” in asserting a general 
criminal jurisdiction over tribal lands within the limits of a
State.  Ibid.  And, given the limited nature of the Federal 
Government’s  authority,  state  laws  thus  played  a  signifi-
cant role in regulating Indians within the territorial limits 
of States.  See id., at 939. 

III 
The Constitution’s text and the foregoing history point to
a  set  of  discrete,  enumerated  powers  applicable  to  Indian
tribes—just  as  in  any  other  context.    Although  our  cases
have  at  times  suggested  a  broader  power  with  respect  to
Indians, there is no evidence for such a free-floating author-
ity  anywhere  in  the  text  or  original  understanding  of  the
Constitution.  To the contrary, all of the Government’s early
acts with respect to Indians are easily explicable under our 
normal  understanding  of  the  Constitution’s  enumerated 
powers.  For example, the Treaty Clause supported the Fed-
eral Government’s treaties with Indians, and the Property 
Clause supported the gifts allocated to Indians.  The powers
to regulate territories and foreign affairs supported the reg-
ulation of passports and penalties for criminal acts on In-
dian lands.  The various war-related powers supported mil-
itary campaigns against Indian tribes.  And the Commerce 
Clause supported the regulation of trade with Indian tribes. 
Moreover, the Founders deliberately chose to enumerate
one  power  specific  to  Indian  tribes:  the  power  to  regulate
“Commerce” with tribes.  Because the Constitution contains 

—————— 
provisions  against  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  deemed  not  to  be  an
Indian, who committed a crime on Indian lands within “a part of the ter-
ritory of the United States, and not within the limits of any particular 
State.”  United States v. Rogers, 4 How. 567, 571–572 (1846).