Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 108.0

26 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

that Article III both allowed the suit and gave this Court
original jurisdiction because the suit was one by a “foreign 
Stat[e]” against the State of Georgia.  §2, cls. 1–2.  Writing
for  the  Court,  Chief  Justice  Marshall  admitted  that  the 
Tribe’s argument was “imposing”: The Tribe was “a state, 
as a distinct political society,” but it was “not a state of the
union.”  5  Pet.,  at  16.    Nonetheless,  the  Court  refused  to 
hear  the  case.    As  Marshall  reasoned,  Indian  tribes  were 
not  “foreign  state[s]  in  the  sense  of  the  constitution,”  as
shown  in  part  by  the  Commerce  Clause’s  delineation  of 
States, foreign nations, and Indian tribes.12  Ibid.  Rather, 
Marshall reasoned that the Indian tribes occupied a unique 
status, which he characterized as that of “domestic depend-
ent nations” whose “relation to the United States resembles 
that of a ward to his guardian.”  Id., at 17. 

Other than this opinion, I have been unable to locate any 
evidence that the Founders thought of the Federal Govern-
ment  as  having  a  generalized  guardianship-type  relation-
ship with the Indian tribes—much less one conferring any 
congressional power over Indian affairs.  To the contrary, 
such a status seems difficult to square with the relationship 
between  the  Federal  Government  and  tribes,  which  at 
times  involved  warfare,  not  trust.    See,  e.g.,  Fletcher  & 
Singel 904–907; F. Hutchins, Tribes and the American Con-
stitution 104 (2000).  And, if such a general relationship ex-
isted, there would seem to be little need for the Federal Gov-
ernment to have ratified specific treaties with tribes calling
for  federal  protection.  E.g.,  Treaty  with  the  Kaskaskia 
(1803), 7 Stat. 78; Treaty with the Creeks (1790), id., at 35. 
At bottom, Cherokee Nation’s loose dicta cannot support a
broader power over Indian affairs. 

—————— 

12 In dissent, Justice Thompson reasoned that the reference to “Indian 
tribes” was meant only to ensure that the Federal Government could reg-
ulate commerce with tribes, which were often subunits of Indian nations. 
Accordingly, he concluded that Indian nations were “ ‘foreign states’ ” un-
der Article III.  Cherokee Nation, 5 Pet., at 64.