Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 104

22 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

broader term than “commerce,” with “affairs” more gener-
ally referring to things to be done.9  Thus, whatever the pre-
cise  contours  of  a  freestanding  “Indian  Affairs”  Clause 
might have been, the Founders’ specific rejection of such a 

—————— 
limits on the Indian-affairs power found in the Articles of Confederation: 
that  the  Indians  not  be  “members  of  any  of  the  States,”  and  that  no 
State’s “legislative right . . . within its own limits be . . . infringed.”  See 
Brief for Federal Parties 12–13.  But removing those two limits in the 
Indian context cannot simultaneously expand the very meaning of “com-
merce,” particularly because the Commerce Clause operates on two ob-
jects beyond Indian tribes.  The Constitution’s changes in this regard are
thus best understood as narrowing the subject matter of Congress’ power 
while omitting external constraints on that power. 

9 Compare  F.  Allen,  A  Complete  English  Dictionary  (1765)  (Allen)
(“something done,” or “the concerns and transactions of a nation”); 1 S.
Johnson, Dictionary of the English Language (6th ed. 1785) (Johnson); 
N. Bailey, A Universal Etymological English Dictionary (26th ed. 1789)
(Bailey),  with  Allen  (“the  exchange  of  commodities,  or  the  buying  and
selling  [of]  merchandize  both  at  home  and  abroad;  intercourse  of  any 
kind”); Johnson (similar); Bailey (similar). 

Indeed, when the Founders referred to Indian “affairs,” they were often 
referring to diplomatic relations—going far afield of their references to 
Indian “commerce.”  E.g., G. Washington to Congress (Mar. 26, 1792), in 
4 American State Papers 225 (referring to “the present crisis of affairs” 
with Indians and “managing the affairs of the Indian tribes” in a general 
sense, including inviting the Five Nations to the seat of the Federal Gov-
ernment and giving presents to the tribes); Report from H. Knox (Nov. 7, 
1792),  in  id.,  at  225  (referring  to  “the  subject  of  Indian  Affairs”  in  the 
context of measures “to procure a peace with the Indians” and troops); 
Natelson 217–218 (detailing preconstitutional references to the Depart-
ment of Indian Affairs).  As noted above, Congress tasked the War De-
partment with duties “relative to Indian affairs.”  §1, 1 Stat. 50.  And a 
Committee of the Continental Congress once remarked that “the princi-
pal objects” of that Congress’ power of “managing affairs with” Indians
had encompassed “making war and peace, purchasing certain tracts of 
their land, fixing the boundaries between them and our people, and pre-
venting the latter [from] settling on lands left in possession of the for-
mer.”  33 Journals of the Continental Congress 458 (1936 ed.).  Of course, 
it may be that the Constitution’s other enumerated powers authorized
many of those “objects.”  But, whatever the precise bounds of an “Indian
affairs” power, it was decidedly broader than a power over Indian “com-
merce.”