Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 73.0

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

31 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

creating federal restrictions concerning what United States 
citizens  and  States  may  do  in  the  context  of  Indian
[T]ribes.”  Ibid.  Nothing in the Clause grants Congress the
affirmative power to reassign to the federal government in-
herent sovereign authorities that belong to the Tribes. 

In that way, the Indian Commerce Clause confirms, ra-
ther  than  abridges,  principles  of  tribal  sovereignty.    As  it 
must.  It  is  “inconceivable”  that  a  power  to  regulate  non-
Indians’  dealings  with  Indians  could  be  used  to  “dives[t 
Tribes] of the right of self-government.”  Worcester, 6 Pet., 
at  554.  Otherwise,  a  power  to  manage  relations  with  a
party would become an instrument for “annihilating the po-
litical existence of one of the parties.” Ibid.  No one in the 
Nation’s  formative  years  thought  that  could  be  the  law. 
They understood that Congress could no more use its com-
merce powers to legislate away a Tribe than it could a State 
or a foreign sovereign.  Cf. National League of Cities v. Us-
ery, 426 U. S. 833, 855 (1976); Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 
269  U. S.  514,  523–526  (1926);  Lane  County  v.  Oregon,  7 
Wall. 71, 76–77 (1869).  The framers appreciated, too, that
they  possessed  no  more  “authority  to  delegate  to  the  na-
tional government power to regulate the [T]ribes directly”
than they possessed authority to “delegate power to the fed-
eral  government  over  other  peoples  who  were  not  part  of 
the federal union.”  Clinton 2002, at 254; see also R. Barsh, 
Book Review, Felix S. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian 
Law, 1982 Ed., 57 Wash. L. Rev. 799, 803 (1982). 

D 
As we have now seen, the Constitution reflected a care-
fully considered balance between tribal, state, and federal 
powers.  That  scheme  predated  the  founding  and  it  per-
sisted long after.  It is not, however, the balance this Court 
always  maintained  in  the  years  since.    More  than  a  little 
fault for that fact lies with a doctrinal misstep.  In the late 
19th century, this Court misplaced the original meaning of