Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 32

4 

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

management and regulation of the Indian affairs.”  Letter 
to the Citizens of the State of New York (June 13–14, 1788),
in 20 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Con-
stitution 1153, 1158 (J. Kaminski et al. eds. 2004). 

Consistent with that view, “the Washington Administra-
tion insisted that the federal government enjoyed exclusive 
constitutional  authority”  over  tribal  relations.    Ablavsky
1019.  The new Administration understood, too, that Tribes 
remained  otherwise  free  to  govern  their  internal  affairs
without  state  interference.  See  id.,  at  1041–1042,  1065– 
1067.  In  a  letter  to  the  Governor  of  Pennsylvania,  Presi-
dent Washington stated curtly that “the United States . . . 
posses[es]  the  only  authority  of  regulating  an  intercourse 
with [the Indians], and redressing their grievances.”  Letter 
to T. Mifflin (Sept. 4, 1790), in 6 Papers of George Washing-
ton:  Presidential  Series  396  (D.  Twohig  ed.  1996).  Even 
Thomas Jefferson, the great defender of the States’ powers,
agreed  that  “under  the  present  Constitution”  no  “State 
[has] a right to Treat with the Indians without the consent 
of the General Government.”  Letter to H. Knox (Aug. 10,
1791), in 22 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 27 (C. Cullen, E.
Sheridan, & R Lester eds. 1986).

Nor was this view confined to the Executive Branch.  Con-
gress quickly exercised its new constitutional authority.  In 
1790, it enacted the first Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, 
which  pervasively  regulated  commercial  and  social  ex-
changes  among  Indians  and  non-Indians.    Ch.  33,  1  Stat. 
137.  Congress  also  provided  for  federal  jurisdiction  over
crimes  by  non-Indians  against  Indians  on  tribal  lands. 
§§ 5–6, id., at 138.  States, too, recognized their lack of au-
thority.  See Ablavsky 1019, 1043.  In 1789, South Carolina 
Governor  Charles  Pinckney  acknowledged  to  Washington 
that “the sole management of India[n ] affairs is now com-
mitted” to “the general Government.”  Letter to G. Wash-
ington (Dec. 14), in 4 Papers of George Washington: Presi-
dential Series 401, 404 (D. Twohig ed. 1993).  Initially, even