Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 101.0

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

19 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

(2014);  id.,  at  893–894  (THOMAS,  J.,  concurring  in  judg-
ment) (the Treaty Power supports treaties only on matters
of international intercourse); Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 
416,  433–435  (1920).  It  does  not  confer  a  free-floating
power over matters that might involve a party to a treaty. 

2 
Second, the Commerce Clause confers only the authority
“[t]o regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian Tribes.”  Art. I, 
§8, cl. 3 (emphasis added).  “At the time the original Consti-
tution was ratified, ‘commerce’ consisted of selling, buying, 
and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes.” 
United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 585 (1995) (THOMAS, 
J., concurring); see also 1 S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the 
English Language 361 (4th rev. ed. 1773) (reprint 1978) (de-
fining commerce as “Intercourse; exchange of one thing for 
another;  interchange  of  any  thing;  trade;  traffick”).    And 
even  under  our  most  expansive  Commerce  Clause  prece-
dents,  the  Clause  permits  Congress  to  regulate  only  “eco-
nomic activity” like producing materials that will be sold or 
exchanged as a matter of commerce.  See Lopez, 514 U. S., 
at 560; Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 22 (2005).6 

The  majority,  however,  suggests  that  the  Commerce 
Clause could have a broader application with respect to In-
dian tribes than for commerce between States or with for-
eign nations.  See ante, at 11, 16.  That makes little textual 
sense.  The Commerce Clause confers the power to regulate 

—————— 

6 Though  the  Court  has  only  passingly  discussed  the  Commerce 
Clause’s  application  to  commerce  with  foreign  nations,  see  Baston  v. 
United States, 580 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from de-
nial of certiorari) (slip op., at 3), it has still described that application in
terms of economic measures like embargoes, see Atlantic Cleaners & Dy-
ers, Inc. v. United States, 286 U. S. 427, 434 (1932); Buttfield v. Strana-
han, 192 U. S. 470, 493 (1904).  See also R. Barnett, The Original Mean-
ing of the Commerce Clause, 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 101, 113–116, 128 (2001) 
(collecting  Founding-era  sources  that  equate  foreign  commerce  with 
trade).