Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 117

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

35 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

make sense to limit Kagama to that conceptual root, treat-
ing  regulations  of  tribal  lands  and  tribal  governments  as 
“external” to the normal affairs of the Nation. 

Indeed, such a line explains almost all of the myriad cases
that respondents have cataloged as showing an unqualified 
power over Indian affairs.  See, e.g., Michigan v. Bay Mills 
Indian  Community,  572  U. S.  782,  789  (2014)  (tribal  gov-
ernment’s sovereign immunity); Cherokee Nation v. Hitch-
cock,  187  U. S.  294,  299,  308  (1902)  (federal  approval  of 
mining leases on tribal lands); Stephens, 174 U. S., at 476– 
477 (federal court in Indian territory).  Many, for example, 
dealt with federal laws that purported to diminish a tribe’s 
territory  or  jurisdiction.    South  Dakota  v.  Yankton  Sioux 
Tribe, 522 U. S. 329 (1998); Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U. S. 
99 (1993); Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of 
Yakima  Nation,  439  U. S.  463  (1979);  United  States  v. 
Hellard, 322 U. S. 363 (1944).  Others dealt with state taxes 
on Indian lands.  See, e.g., Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New 
Mexico, 490 U. S. 163 (1989); Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 
U. S.  373  (1976);  Board  of  County  Comm’rs  v.  Seber,  318 
U. S.  705  (1943);  Choate  v.  Trapp,  224  U. S.  665  (1912).
Others still have permitted the Federal Government to di-
minish a tribe’s self-government.  See Santa Clara Pueblo, 
436 U. S., at 56–57.  And yet others, in Kagama’s direct lin-
eage, dealt with crimes on Indian lands.  See, e.g., Lara, 541 
U. S., at 200; see also, e.g., United States v. Cooley, 593 U. S. 
___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 1); Wheeler, 435 U. S., at 323– 
324. 

In  doing  so,  some  of  those  criminal  law  cases  reasoned 
that the Double Jeopardy Clause permits separate punish-
ments by tribal governments and the Federal Government 
because  of  the  tribe’s  separate  sovereignty,  underscoring 
Kagama’s  conceptual  root.  See,  e.g.,  Cooley,  593  U. S.,  at 
___ (slip op., at 1); Lara, 541 U. S., at 200.  And, along the
way,  at  least  some  of  these  cases  clarified,  like  Kagama,