Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 105.0

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

23 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

power shows that there is no basis to stretch the Commerce 
Clause beyond its normal limits.10 

3 
Third, the “structural principles” that the majority points
to are only the foreign-affairs powers that the Constitution
provides more generally.  See Lara, 541 U. S., at 201 (citing 
Curtiss-Wright, 299 U. S., at 315–322).  As detailed above, 
the  Constitution  plainly  confers  foreign-affairs  powers  on
the  Federal  Government  to  regulate  passports,  offenses
against the laws of nations, and citizens’ acts abroad that
threaten the Nation’s peace.  S. Prakash & M. Ramsey, The 
Executive Power Over Foreign Affairs, 111 Yale L. J. 231, 
298–332 (2001).  Those powers were brought to bear on In-
dian  tribes,  with  whom  the  Federal  Government  main-
tained a government-to-government relationship.  See, e.g., 
Cohen §1.03[1], at 25–26; 1 Stat. 470 (passports on Indian
lands); id., at 137 (crimes on Indian lands); id., at 383 (en-
listing with foreign states). 

—————— 

10 The historical record thus provides scant support for the view, advo-
cated by some scholars, that the term “commerce” meant (in the context 
of Indians) all interactions with Indians.  E.g., G. Ablavsky, Beyond the
Indian Commerce Clause, 124 Yale L. J. 1012, 1028–1032 (2015) (Ablav-
sky).  The main evidence for that view appears to be (1) a few, fairly iso-
lated  references  to  “commerce”  outside  the  context  of  trade,  usually  in
the context of sexual encounters, (2) the fact that one definition of “com-
merce”  was  “intercourse”  at  the  Founding,  and  (3)  the  fact  that  trade 
with Indians, at the Founding, had political significance.  Ibid.  But, as 
noted above, the Founders repeatedly used the term “commerce” when 
discussing trade with Indians.  And just because that trade had political
significance surely does not mean that all things of political significance 
were “commerce.”  Nor is the definition of “commerce” as “intercourse” 
instructive, because dictionaries from the era also defined “intercourse” 
as “commerce.”  E.g., Johnson; Allen.  Even some of these same scholars 
concede that the Founders overwhelmingly discussed “trade” with Indi-
ans—far more than either “intercourse” or “commerce” with them.  See 
Ablavsky 1028, n. 81.  And, again, when the Founders did discuss “com-
merce”  specifically,  they  did  so  almost entirely  in  the context  of  trade. 
See supra, at 20–21, and n. 7.