Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 94.0

12 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

that  they  were  unnecessary  because  state  laws  and  some 
treaties already provided for criminal punishment, propo-
nents explained that the provisions were needed for those 
who went “out of the limits of any of the States” and com-
mitted crimes that may not have been covered by a partic-
ular treaty.  See 3 Annals of Cong. 751 (1792).3  Thus, as 
with the border garrisons, these provisions were meant as
“an  answer  to  the  charge  that”  the  United  States  did  not
respect its treaties with Indian tribes, Prucha 92, while also
securing  “peace  with  the  Indian  tribes”  on  the  frontier,  3 
Annals of Cong. 751.  In that respect, they were much like
the  criminal  penalties  that  Congress  levied  on  those  who
went  abroad  and  enlisted  with  England  or  France  and
thereby threatened the United States’ peace with those na-
tions.  See 1 Stat. 383. 

The  Trade  and  Intercourse  Acts  further  hammered  out 
the Nation’s diplomatic and territorial stance with respect
to  the  Indian  tribes.  For  example,  reflecting  the  Federal 
Government’s  powers  over  commerce,  territories,  and  for-
eign affairs, the Acts forbade U. S. citizens from purchas-
ing, surveying, or settling on Indian lands.  E.g., id., at 329– 
330.  One of the Acts, enacted in 1796, then drew a bound-
ary  line  with  Indian  tribes  and  required  citizens  to  have 
passports when entering Indian lands.  Id., at 470.  If an 
Indian came over the boundary line and committed a crime 
against a U. S. citizen, the Acts authorized the President to 
demand  satisfaction  from  the  tribe  (while  specifying  that
the  Indian  could  be  arrested  “within  the  limits  of  any
state”).  See, e.g., §14, id., at 472–473.  Then, to prevent the 

—————— 

3 As  reflected  in  the  debates  on  this  statute,  a  majority  of  Congress 
thought that “the power of the General Government to legislate in all the 
territory belonging to the Union, not within the limits of any particular 
State,  cannot  be  doubted;  if  the  Government  cannot  make  laws  to  re-
strain persons from going out of the limits of any of the States, and com-
mit murders and depredations, it would be in vain to expect any peace 
with the Indian tribes.”  3 Annals of Cong. 751.