Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 79

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

37 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

Kagama, 118 U. S., at 381–382).  In enacting ICWA, Con-
It  recognized  that
gress  affirmed  this  understanding. 
“there is no resource that is more vital to the continued ex-
istence and integrity of Indian [T]ribes than their children.” 
25 U. S. C. §1901(3).  Yet it also recognized that the mass-
removal  of  Indian  children  by  States  and  other  outsiders
threatened the “continued existence and integrity of Indian
[T]ribes.” Ibid.; see also §1901(4).  By setting out to elimi-
nate  that  practice,  Congress  sought  to  preserve  the
Indian-law bargain written into the Constitution’s text by
securing the continued viability of the “third sovereign.”  S. 
O’Connor, Remark, Lessons From the Third Sovereign:  In-
dian Tribal Courts, 33 Tulsa L. J. 1 (1997).

No doubt, ICWA sharply limits the ability of States to im-
pose their own family-law policies on tribal members.  But 
as we have seen, state intrusions on tribal authority have
been a recurring theme throughout American history.  See 
Ablavsky 2014, at 1009–1037.  Long ago, those intrusions
led the framers to abandon the loophole-ridden Indian af-
fairs provision in the Articles of Confederation and adopt in 
the Constitution a different arrangement that commits the 
management of tribal relations solely to the federal govern-
ment.  Id., at 1038–1051; see also Clinton 1995, at 1098– 
1165.  Recognizing as much, this Court has consistently re-
affirmed  the  Tribes’  “immunity  from  state  and  local  con-
trol.”  Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Ariz., 463 U. S. 
545, 571 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted).  If that 
immunity means anything, it must mean that States and
others cannot use their own laws to displace federal Indian
policy.

Nor is there any serious question that Congress has the 
power under the Indian Commerce Clause to enact protec-
tions against the removal of Indian children.  Thankfully,
Indian children are not (these days) units of commerce.  Cf. 
Fletcher & Singel 897–898 (describing an early practice of 
enslaving Indian children).  But at its core, ICWA restricts