Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

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

3 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

the Articles of Confederation, they debated whether the na-
tional  or  state  authorities  should  manage  Indian  affairs. 
See 6 Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789, pp. 
1077–1079 (W. Ford ed. 1906).  The resulting compromise 
proved  unworkable.    The  Articles  granted  Congress  the 
“sole  and  exclusive  right  and  power  of  . . .  regulating  the 
trade and managing all affairs with the Indians.”  Art. IX. 
But  the  Articles  undermined  that  assignment  by  further 
providing that “the legislative right of any state[,] within its 
own limits,” could not be “infringed or violated.”  Ibid.  To-
gether, these provisions led to battles between national and 
state  governments  over  who  could  oversee  relations  with 
various Tribes.  See G. Ablavsky, Beyond the Indian Com-
merce  Clause,  124  Yale  L. J.  1012,  1033–1035  (2015) 
(Ablavsky).  James Madison later complained that the Ar-
ticles’ division of authority over Indian affairs had “endeav-
ored to accomplish [an] impossibilit[y]; to reconcile a partial 
sovereignty in the Union, with complete sovereignty in the 
States.”  The Federalist No. 42, p. 269 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
When the framers convened to draft a new Constitution, 
this problem was among those they sought to resolve.  To 
that end, they gave the federal government “broad general 
powers”  over  Indian  affairs.    United  States  v.  Lara,  541 
U. S. 193, 200 (2004).  The Constitution afforded Congress
authority  to  make  war  and  negotiate  treaties  with  the
Tribes.  See Art. I, § 8; Art. VI, cl. 2.  It barred States from 
doing either of these things.  See Art. I, § 10.  And the Con-
stitution  granted  Congress  the  power  to  “regulate  Com-
merce . . . with the Indian Tribes.”  Art. I, § 8, cl. 3.  Nor did 
the  Constitution  replicate  the  Articles’  carveout  for  state 
power  over  Tribes  within  their  borders.    Madison  praised 
this  change,  contending  that  the  new  federal  government 
would be “very properly unfettered” from this prior “limita-
tio[n].”  The Federalist No. 42, at 268.  Antifederalist Abra-
ham Yates agreed (but bemoaned) that the Constitution “to-
tally  surrender[ed]  into  the  hands  of  Congress  the