Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 128.0

6 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

of the Federal Government.”  Id., at 72.  Even when we have 
sustained  legislation,  we  have  cautioned  against  congres-
sional overreach.  See Lara, 541 U. S., at 203–205.  We have 
suggested that a law may exceed Congress’s power to regu-
late  Indian  affairs  if  it  has  “an  unusual  legislative  objec-
tive,” brings about “radical changes in tribal status,” or “in-
terfere[s] with the power or authority of any State.”  Ibid. 

We  have  rarely  had  occasion  to  enforce  these  limits,  in 
part  because  the  enactments  before  us  have  often  fallen 
comfortably within the historical bounds of Congress’s enu-
merated powers.  See ante, at 33–38 (THOMAS, J., dissent-
ing).  But that does not mean that we should shy away from
enforcement  when  presented  with  a  statute  that  exceeds
what the Constitution allows. 

II 
Congress’s power in the area of Indian affairs cannot ex-
ceed the limits imposed by the “system of dual sovereignty
between  the  States  and  the  Federal  Government”  estab-
lished by the Constitution.  Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 
452, 457 (1991).  “The powers delegated . . . to the federal 
government are few and defined,” while “[t]hose which . . . 
remain in the State governments are numerous and indefi-
nite.”  The Federalist No. 45, p. 292 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) 
(J. Madison).  The powers retained by the States constitute 
“ ‘a  residuary  and  inviolable  sovereignty,’ ”  secure  against
federal  intrusion.  Printz  v.  United  States,  521  U. S.  898, 
919 (1997) (quoting The Federalist No. 39, at 245 (J. Madi-
son)).  This  structural  principle,  reinforced  in  the  Tenth
Amendment, “confirms that the power of the Federal Gov-
ernment is subject to limits that may, in a given instance,
reserve power to the States.”  New York, 505 U. S., at 157. 
The corollary is also true: in some circumstances, the pow-
ers  reserved  to  the  States  inform  the  scope  of  Congress’s 
power.  Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 584 
U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 15).  This includes in the