Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 78.0

36 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

the  Tribes  “derive  from  the  Constitution,  not  the  atmos-
phere.”  Ante, at 11.  It engages in a robust history-driven 
analysis  of  the  various  fonts  of  congressional  authority
without  relying  only  on  platitudes  about  plenary  power. 
Ante, at 11–13.  It notes that, as an original matter, the In-
dian  Commerce  Clause  is  “broad”  and  covers  more  than 
garden-variety commercial activity.  Ante, at 11–16.  In the 
process,  it  reaffirms  that  “ ‘commerce  with  the  Indian 
[T]ribes’ ” necessarily covers commerce with “Indians as in-
dividuals.”  Ante, at 15–16. 

No  less  importantly,  the  Court  acknowledges  what  the 
federal government cannot do.  “Article I gives Congress a 
series of enumerated powers, not a series of blank checks.” 
Ante, at 13.  And that means that “Congress’s authority to
legislate with respect to Indians is not unbounded,” but in-
stead comes with concrete limitations.  Ibid.  To resolve the 
present dispute, the Court understandably sees no need to
demarcate  those  limitations  further.    But  I  hope  that,  in
time, it will follow the implications of today’s decision where
they lead and return us to the original bargain struck in the 
Constitution—and,  with  it,  the  respect  for  Indian  sover-
eignty it entails. 

III 
With  all  the  historical  pieces  of  this  puzzle  assembled, 
only  one  task  remains.    You  must  decide  for  yourself  if
ICWA passes constitutional muster.

By now, the full picture has come into view and it is easy
to  see  why  ICWA  must  stand.  Under  our  Constitution, 
Tribes remain independent sovereigns responsible for gov-
erning their own affairs.  And as this Court has long recog-
nized, domestic law arrangements fall within Tribes’ tradi-
tional  powers  of  self-governance.   See,  e.g.,  Fisher,  424 
U. S., at 387; Quiver, 241 U. S., at 605.  As “ ‘a separate peo-
ple’ ” Tribes may “ ‘regulat[e] their internal and social rela-
tions’ ”  as  they  wish.    Wheeler,  435  U. S.,  at  322  (quoting