Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 121

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

39 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

within  the  sole  jurisdiction  of  States  merely because  they
happen  to  be  Indians,  ICWA  stands  clearly  outside  the
framework of our Indian-law precedents.  To uphold ICWA
therefore would drastically expand the context in which we 
have  previously  upheld  Indian-related  laws  in  Kagama’s 
framework. 

But, even if that is so, the majority appears to ask “why 
Congress’s power is limited to these scenarios.”  Ante, at 17, 
n. 4.  The majority nearly answers itself: because our Con-
stitution  is  one  of  enumerated  powers,  and  limiting  Con-
gress’ authority to those “buckets” would bring our jurispru-
dence  closer  to  the  powers  enumerated  by  the  text  and
original meaning of the Constitution.  See ante, at 11, 14, 
17, n. 4.  While I share the majority’s frustration with peti-
tioners’ limited engagement with the Court’s precedents, I 
would recognize the contexts of those cases and limit the so-
called plenary power to those contexts.  Such limits would 
at least start us on the road back to the Constitution’s orig-
inal meaning in the area of Indian law. 

* 

* 

* 
The Constitution confers enumerated powers on the Fed-
eral  Government.  Not  one  of  them  supports  ICWA.  Nor 
does precedent.  To the contrary, this Court has never up-
held a federal statute that regulates the noncommercial ac-
tivities  of  a  U. S.  citizen  residing  on  lands  under  the  sole 
jurisdiction of States merely because he happens to be an 
Indian.  But that is exactly what ICWA does: It regulates
child custody proceedings, brought in state courts, for those 
who  need  never  have  set  foot  on  Indian  lands.    It  is  not 
about tribal lands or tribal governments, commerce, trea-
ties, or federal property.  It therefore fails equally under the 
Court’s precedents as it fails under the plain text and orig-
inal meaning of the Constitution. 

If there is one saving grace to today’s decision, it is that