Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 107

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

25 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

with questions of peace and war plainly involved some sort 
of  sovereign-to-sovereign  relationship.  See,  e.g.,  Treaty
with the Cherokees (1791), 7 Stat. 39.  And the early Trade 
and Intercourse Acts regulated only the criminal conduct of
U. S. citizens on Indian lands. 

This congruence—between the government’s actions and 
the  Constitution’s  enumerated  powers—likely  reflects  the 
fact that those powers, collectively, responded to the most
pressing  concerns  of  the  day:  that  Congress  could  not  en-
force its treaties with Indians, police the frontier, or regu-
late  unscrupulous  traders—all  of  which  caused  violence 
and raised the specter of war with Indian tribes.  As noted, 
when Congress tried to expand its domain in 1817 to regu-
late the criminal acts of Indians, one Justice of this Court 
found it to be a palpable violation of Congress’ limited pow-
ers.  See Bailey, 24 F. Cas., at 938–940.  And, all the while, 
States  continued  to  regulate  matters  relating  to  Indians 
within  their  territorial  limits.    The  normal  federalist  dy-
namic thus extended to the domain of Indian affairs: The 
Federal Government was supreme with respect to its enu-
merated powers, but States retained all residual police pow-
ers  within  their  territorial  borders.    See  id.,  at  938–939; 
McCulloch,  4  Wheat.,  at  405.  And  the  Federal  Govern-
ment’s  enumerated  powers  were  not  unlimited,  but  con-
fined to their plain meaning and limits. 

B 

So  where  did  the  idea of  a  “plenary  power”  over  Indian 
affairs  come  from?  As  it  turns  out,  little  more  than  ipse 
dixit.  The story begins with loose dicta from Cherokee Na-
tion v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1 (1831).  In that case, the Cherokee 
Nation  petitioned  this  Court  for  an  injunction  to  prevent 
Georgia from enforcing state laws in Cherokee territory and
from seizing Cherokee lands.  Id., at 11.  The Tribe asserted 
—————— 
non-Indians from stealing Indian lands, circumventing Congress’ trade-
licensing scheme, and disrupting the peace with Indian tribes.