Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 113.0

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

31 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

A 
ICWA  lacks  any  foothold  in  the  Constitution’s  original
meaning.  Most obviously, ICWA has no parallel from the
Founding era; it regulates the child custody proceedings of 
U. S. citizens in state courts—not on Indian lands—merely 
because the children involved happen to be Indians.  No law 
from that time even came close to asserting a general police 
power over citizens who happened to be Indians—by, for ex-
ample, regulating the acts of Indians who were also citizens
and who lived within the sole jurisdiction of States (and not 
on Indian lands).  If nothing else, the dearth of Founding-
era  laws  even  remotely  similar  to  ICWA  should  give  us 
pause.

Nor can ICWA find any support in the Constitution’s enu-
merated powers as originally understood.  I take those pow-
ers  in  turn:  First,  the  Property  Clause  cannot  support 
ICWA because ICWA is not based on the disposition of fed-
eral property and is not limited to federal lands; in fact, the 
Federal Government owns very little Indian land.  See Sta-
tistical Record of Native North Americans 1054 (M. Reddy
ed. 1993); S. Prakash, Against Tribal Fungibility, 89 Cor-
nell L. Rev. 1069, 1092–1093 (2004). 

Second, the Treaty Clause cannot support ICWA because
no  one  has  identified  a  treaty  that  governs  child  custody
proceedings—much less a treaty with each of the 574 feder-
ally recognized tribes to which ICWA applies.  25 U. S. C. 
§§1903(3),  (8);  86  Fed.  Reg.  7554  (2021).    Nor  could  they;
Congress  declared  an  end  to  treaty-making  with  Indian 
tribes  in  1871,  and  it  appears  that  well  over  half  of  the
tribes lack any treaty with the Federal Government.  See 
16  Stat.  566;  Brief  for  Tribal  Defendants  37–38;  see  also 
generally  Vols.  1–2  C.  Kappler,  Indian  Affairs:  Laws  and 
Treaties (2d ed. 1902, 1904).  And, in part because one Con-
gress can never bind a later Congress, the Federal Govern-
ment retains the power to abrogate treaties and has done
so  for  at  least  some  Indian  treaties.    E.g.,  Lone  Wolf,  187