Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 61

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

19 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

1098.  In response to a pattern of conflict arising out of co-
lonial  intrusion  on  tribal  land,  that  supervision  grew  in-
creasingly exacting.  Ibid.; see also R. Clinton, The Procla-
mation  of  1763:  Colonial  Prelude  to  Two  Centuries  of 
Federal-State Conflict Over the Management of Indian Af-
fairs, 69 B. U. L. Rev. 329, 331–337 (1989) (Clinton 1989).
In  1743,  for  example,  a  British  royal  commission  rejected 
an effort by the colony of Connecticut to exercise independ-
ent jurisdiction over a Tribe within its borders.  Id., at 335– 
336.  The decision rested on a now-familiar logic:  “The In-
dians,  though  living  amongst  the  king’s  subjects  in  these
countries,  are  a  separate  and  distinct  people  from  them, 
they  are  treated  with  as  such,  they  have  a  polity  of  their 
own, they make peace and war with any nation of Indians 
when  they  think  fit,  without  controul  from  the  English.”
Opinion of Comm’r Horsmanden, Aug. 1, 1743, in Governor 
and  Company  of  Connecticut,  and  Mohegan  Indians,  By 
Their Guardians 126 (1743).

The mere suggestion of colonial management of tribal re-
lations  catalyzed  further  “centralization  of  oversight  and 
control of colonial Indian regulation by the British govern-
ment,”  culminating  in  the  Proclamation  of  1763.    Clinton 
1989,  at  336.  That  proclamation  announced  the  Crown’s 
intent  to  manage  all  “land  cessions,  diplomatic  and  other
relations, and trade  with the Indian [T]ribes,” and to dis-
place contrary colonial practice.  Id., at 357.  Britain never 
had a chance to iron out the kinks of that approach before
the Revolutionary War broke out.  But “[i]mmediately prior
to  1776,  the  stage  was  set”  for  “complete  imperial  control
over the management of Indian matters.”  Id., at 362. 

After the Revolution, the Articles of Confederation gave
the newly formed “[U]nited [S]tates . . . the sole and exclu-
sive  right  and  power  of  . . .  managing  all  affairs  with  the 
Indians, not members of any of the [S]tates.”  Art. IX (1777). 
In providing that grant of authority, the Articles’ drafters