Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 60

18 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

States v. Lara, 541 U. S. 193, 218 (2004) (THOMAS, J., con-
curring  in  judgment)  (describing  the  Act  as  “constitution-
ally  suspect”);  M.  Pearl,  Originalism  and  the  Indians,  93 
Tulane L. Rev. 269, 330–331 (2018) (Pearl) (similar).  But 
the sponsors of that Act sought only to increase the role of 
bicameral  legislation  in  managing  Indian  affairs.  See  An-
toine  v.  Washington,  420  U. S.  194,  202–203  (1975).    The 
law did not purport to “invalidat[e] or impai[r]” any existing
“obligation  of  any  treaty  lawfully  made  and  ratified.”    25 
U. S. C. §71.  And the law did not abridge, nor could it have 
validly abridged, the long-settled view of tribal sovereignty.
In fact, the United States proceeded to enter into roughly 
400  further  executive  agreements  with  the  Tribes  practi-
cally indistinguishable from the treaties that came before.
See  generally  V.  Deloria  &  R.  DeMallie,  Documents  of 
American  Indian  Diplomacy:  Treaties,  Agreements,  and 
Conventions, 1775–1979 (1999).  Keep this original under-
standing of tribal sovereignty in mind.  It provides an es-
sential point of framing. 

B 
Just as the Constitution safeguards the sovereign author-
ity  of  Tribes,  it  comes  with  a  “concomitant  jurisdictional
limit  on  the  reach  of  state  law”  over  Indian  affairs. 
McClanahan  v.  Arizona  Tax  Comm’n,  411  U. S.  164,  171 
(1973).  As  this  Court  has  consistently  recognized,  “[t]he 
policy  of  leaving  Indians  free  from  state  jurisdiction  and
control is deeply rooted in the Nation’s history.”  Rice v. Ol-
son, 324 U. S. 786, 789 (1945).  Instead, responsibility for 
managing  interactions  with  the  Tribes  rests  exclusively 
with the federal government.  To appreciate this point, walk 
through time once more. 

Since the first days of British rule, the Crown oversaw—
and  retained  the  power  to  dictate—the  Colonies’  engage-
ment with the Indian Tribes.  See Clinton 1995, at 1064–