Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 127

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

5 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

of a trustee.  In exercising its constitutionally-granted pow-
ers, the Federal Government, “following ‘a humane and self 
imposed policy,’ ” has committed itself to “ ‘moral obligations
of the highest responsibility and trust’ ” to the Indian peo-
ple.  United  States  v.  Jicarilla  Apache  Nation,  564  U. S. 
162, 176 (2011).1 

Nevertheless,  we  have  repeatedly  cautioned  that  Con-
gress’s Indian affairs power is not unbounded.  And while 
we have articulated few limits, we have acknowledged what 
should  be  one  obvious  constraint:  Congress’s  authority  to
regulate Indian affairs is limited by other “pertinent consti-
tutional  restrictions”  that  circumscribe  the  legislative 
power.  United States v. Creek Nation, 295 U. S. 103, 109– 
110  (1935);  see  also  New  York  v.  United  States,  505  U. S. 
144,  156  (1992)  (“Congress  exercises  its  conferred  powers 
subject to the limitations contained in the Constitution”). 

For  example,  in  Seminole  Tribe  of  Fla.  v.  Florida,  517 
U. S.  44  (1996),  we  held  that  Congress’s  power  under  the
Indian Commerce Clause was limited by “the background 
principle of state sovereign immunity embodied in the Elev-
enth Amendment.”  Id., at 72.  We rejected the Tribe’s ar-
gument that Congress’s Indian affairs power could exceed 
other constitutional restrictions when “necessary” to “ ‘pro-
tect the tribes’ ” from state interference.  Id., at 60.  Foun-
dational  constitutional  principles  like  state  sovereign  im-
munity, we observed, are “not so ephemeral as to dissipate
when the subject of the suit is [in] an area, like the regula-
tion of Indian commerce, that is under the exclusive control 

—————— 

1 The state of affairs on many Indian reservations, however, does not 
speak well of the way in which these duties have been discharged by this 
putative  trustee.  See,  e.g.,  U.  S.  Commission  on  Civil  Rights,  Broken 
Promises:  Continuing  Federal  Funding  Shortfall  for  Native  Americans
102–107, 135–138, 156–157, 165–166 (Dec. 2018) (discussing poor per-
formance of students in tribal schools, substandard housing and physical
infrastructure on reservations, and high rates of unemployment among
Indians living on reservations).