Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

13 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

state boundaries.  Their reservations are not glorified pri-
vate campgrounds.  Tribes are sovereigns.  And the preemp-
tion  rule  applicable  to  them  is  exactly  the  opposite  of  the 
normal  rule.  Tribal  sovereignty  means  that  the  criminal 
laws  of  the  States  “can  have  no  force”  on  tribal  members 
within tribal bounds unless and until Congress clearly or-
dains  otherwise.    Worcester,  6  Pet.,  at  561.  After  all,  the 
power  to  punish  crimes  by  or  against  one’s  own  citizens 
within one’s own territory to the exclusion of other author-
ities is and has always been among the most essential at-
tributes  of  sovereignty.  See,  e.g.,  Wilson  v.  Girard,  354 
U. S. 524, 529 (1957) (per curiam) (“A sovereign nation has 
exclusive  jurisdiction  to  punish  offenses  against  its  laws
committed within its borders”); see also Schooner Exchange 
v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 136 (1812); E. de Vattel, Law
of Nations 81–82 (1835 ed.).

Nor is this “ ‘notion,’ ” ante, at 5, some discarded artifact 
of a bygone era.  To be sure, Washington, Jefferson, Mar-
shall, and so many others at the Nation’s founding appreci-
ated the sovereign status of Native American Tribes.  See 
Part I–A, supra.  But this Court’s own cases have consist-
ently reaffirmed the point.  Just weeks ago, the Court held
that  federal  prosecutors  did  not  violate  the  Double  Jeop-
ardy Clause based on the essential premise that tribal crim-
inal law is the product of a “separate sovereig[n]” exercising 
its  own  “retained  sovereignty.”  Denezpi  v.  United  States, 
596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation 
marks  omitted).    Recently,  too,  this  Court  confirmed  that
Tribes enjoy sovereign immunity from suit.  See Michigan 
v.  Bay  Mills  Indian  Community,  572  U. S.  782,  788–789 
(2014).   Throughout our history, “the basic policy of Worces-
ter”  that  Tribes  are  separate  sovereigns  “has  remained.” 
Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S., at 219.2 

—————— 

2 See also Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, 596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip