Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1484_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 21

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

5 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

See id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 26–27).  The text of the Con-
stitution  (which  mentions  Indians  only  in  the  contexts  of 
commerce and apportionment) is completely silent on any 
such  trust  relationship.  See  Art.  I,  §§2,  8;  Amdt.  14,  §2.
Further, the trust relationship does not have any historical
basis.  Its genesis is usually traced to this Court’s statement 
in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1 (1831), that the re-
lation of the United States to Indians has “resembl[ed] that 
of  a  ward  to  his  guardian,”  id.,  at  17;  see  also  F.  Cohen, 
Handbook  of  Federal  Indian  Law  §2.02[2],  p.  117  (2012) 
(Cohen).  However, that statement was dicta, see Haaland, 
599 U. S., at ___–___ (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 
25–27); and, in any event, the Indian Tribe in that case had 
a specific treaty calling for the Federal Government’s “pro-
tection,” Cherokee Nation, 5 Pet., at 17.  Some treaties with 
tribes  have  contained  similar  provisions;  others  have  not. 
Compare Treaty With the Wyandots, 7 Stat. 31, with Treaty 
With the Mohawks, 7 Stat. 61.  And, of course, some tribes 
before and after the Founding engaged in warfare with the 
Federal Government.  Cohen §1.03[2], at 36; id., §1.03[3], 
at 40.  In short, the idea of a generic trust relationship with
all  tribes—to  say  nothing  of  legally  enforceable  fiduciary 
duties—seems to lack a historical or constitutional basis. 

In future cases, we should clarify the exact status of this
amorphous and seemingly ungrounded “trust relationship.” 
As a start, it would be helpful to acknowledge that many of 
this  Court’s  statements  about  the  trust  relationship  were 
mere  dicta.  E.g.,  Seminole  Nation,  316  U. S.,  at  293–294 
(discrete trust); Mancari, 417 U. S., at 551–552 (equal pro-
tection  challenge  to  Government  hiring  program);  Seber, 
318 U. S., at 707 (state taxes on Indian lands).  In the mean-
time,  however,  the  Court  should  take  care  to  ensure  that 
this confusion does not spill over into yet further areas of 
the law.