Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 58

16 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

to  G.  Washington  (July  7,  1789),  in  3  Papers  of  George
Washington:  Presidential  Series  134–141  (D.  Twohig  ed. 
1989).  Thomas  Jefferson  spoke  of  them  as  maintaining 
“full,  undivided,  and  independent  sovereignty  as  long  as 
they chose to keep it,” commenting also “that this might be 
for ever.”  Notes on Cabinet Opinions (Feb. 26, 1793), in 25 
Papers  of  Thomas  Jefferson  271–272  (J.  Catanzariti  ed.
1992).  This view would later feature in a formal opinion of 
the  Attorney  General,  who  explained  that,  “[s]o  long  as  a
[T]ribe exists . . . its title and possession are sovereign and 
exclusive; and there exists no authority to enter upon their
lands, for any purpose whatever, without their consent.”  1 
Op. Atty. Gen. 465, 466 (1821). 

What went for the Executive went for Congress.  In the 
first few decades of the Nation’s existence, the Legislative
Branch  passed  a  battery  of  statutes  known  as  the  Indian 
Trade and Intercourse Acts.  See, e.g.,  Act of July 22, 1790, 
ch. 33, 1 Stat. 137; Act of Mar. 1, 1793, ch. 19, 1 Stat. 329; 
Act of May 19, 1796, ch. 30, 1 Stat. 469; Act of Mar. 30, 1802, 
ch. 13, 2 Stat. 139; Act of June 30, 1834, 4 Stat. 729.  With-
out exception, those Acts “either explicitly or implicitly reg-
ulated  only  the  non-Indians  who  venture[d]  into  Indian
country to deal with Indians,” and “did not purport to regu-
late the [T]ribes or their members” in any way.  R. Clinton, 
There is No Federal Supremacy Clause for Indian Tribes, 
34 Ariz. St. L. J. 113, 134 (2002) (Clinton 2002). 

This Court recognized many of these same points in its
early cases.  For example, in Worcester, the State of Georgia
sought  to  seize  Cherokee  lands,  abolish  the  Tribe  and  its
laws, and apply its own criminal laws to tribal lands.  6 Pet., 
at 525–528.  Holding Georgia’s laws unconstitutional, this
Court  acknowledged  that  Tribes  remain  “independent  po-
litical communities, retaining their original natural rights.” 
Id.,  at  559.    While  “necessarily  dependent  on”  the  United 
States, id., at 555, under “the settled doctrine of the law of