Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 119.0

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

37 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

dealt with laws that governed trade with Indians, no more. 
See, e.g., United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407 (1866) (sell-
ing liquor to Indians); Perrin v. United States, 232 U. S. 478 
(1914)  (same);  United  States  v.  Sandoval,  231  U. S.  28 
(1913) (same); Dick v. United States, 208 U. S. 340 (1908) 
(selling liquor on Indian lands).  Thus, even if those cases 
suggest  a  broader  power,  they  must  be  taken  in  context.
And the cases that the majority cites for its proposition turn 
out to be the ones that do so in the most obvious dicta.  For 
example, Cotton Petroleum considered state taxes on Indian 
lands; it had no need to opine on the Commerce Clause be-
yond explaining that Indian tribes are not States.  See 490 
U. S., at 192.  In a similar vein, Seminole Tribe of Fla.  v. 
Florida, 517 U. S. 44 (1996), held only that the Commerce 
Clause does not confer any authority to abrogate state sov-
ereign  immunity;  any  language  about  the  breadth  of  the 
“Indian Commerce Clause” was wholly unnecessary to that 
result.  Id., at 62.  Shorn of their dicta, all of these prece-
dents reflect only the longstanding—and enumerated—au-
thority to regulate commerce with Indian tribes. 

Other precedents cited by the majority that do not fit into 
Kagama’s  conceptual  framework  are  easily  explicable  as
supported by other, specific powers of Congress.  For exam-
ple, Lone Wolf held that Congress can enact laws that vio-
late  treaties  with  Indians;  that  holding  was  justified  by 
Congress’  general  power  to  abrogate  an  existing  law  or 
treaty.  187 U. S., at 565–566; accord, La Abra Silver Min-
ing Co., 175 U. S., at 460; Blackstone 90.  Another treaty-
based case, Delaware Tribal Business Comm. v. Weeks, 430 
U. S. 73 (1977), involved the disposition of funds paid pur-
suant to a treaty.  It therefore makes sense as a matter of 
both  the  Property  and  Treaty  Clauses.    And  yet  another
treaty-based case involved a promise by the United States
to establish a discrete trust fund with $500,000 for a Tribe, 
with annual interest to be paid to the Tribe.  See Seminole 
Nation  v.  United  States,  316  U. S.  286,  293–294  (1942).