Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 62

20 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

may have meant to codify the centralized approach the Brit-
ish had pursued.  But the “byzantine” document the draft-
ers  created,  Ablavsky  2015,  at  1034,  came  with  a  pair  of 
easily exploited loopholes.  First, the language of its Indian 
affairs  clause  allowed  some  to  claim  that  various  Tribes 
were  “ ‘members’ ”  of  the  States  and  thus  “exclusively  or
principally  subject  to  state  legislative  control.”    Clinton 
1995, at 1103, 1150.  Second, owing to a fear that the phrase
“sole  and  exclusive”  could  give  the  misimpression  that
States lacked power to manage their own affairs, the Arti-
cles’ drafters added another clause stipulating that “the leg-
islative right of any [S]tate within its own limits be not in-
fringed or violated.”  Art IX.  Taken literally, that provision
meant only that the Articles left to States what belonged to 
the States and to the Tribes what belonged to the Tribes. 
But some States saw in that language too an opportunity to
assert their own control.  See Clinton 1995, at 1103, 1107, 
1113–1118, 1128–1131. 

The result?  A season of conflict brought about by state
and private encroachments on tribal authority.  G. Ablav-
sky,  The  Savage  Constitution,  63  Duke  L. J.  999,  1035– 
1036  (2014)  (Ablavsky  2014).    By  the  time  the  Constitu-
tional Convention rolled around, “Indian uprisings had oc-
curred  . . .  in  the  Ohio  River  Valley  and  Virginia,”  “the 
Creeks and Georgia were on the brink of open warfare,” and 
there  was  significant  turmoil  “on  the  western  frontier.”
Clinton 1995, at 1147.  Those events were not lost on the 
framers.  As  they  debated  how  to  broker  enduring  peace, 
two predominant schools of thought emerged.  Madison and 
his followers favored preventing intrusions on Indian land 
and interests; Hamilton and his adherents favored resort to 
military might.  Ablavsky 2014, at 1035–1038.  Both sides, 
however, found agreement on the “need for a stronger fed-
eral  government”  presence,  without  the  impediment  of 
state interference.  Id., at 1038.