Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

12 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

Opinion of the Court 

problems of Indians” pursuant to pre-existing treaties.  An-
toine  v.  Washington,  420  U. S.  194,  203  (1975)  (emphasis 
deleted).

We have also noted that principles inherent in the Con-
stitution’s structure empower Congress to act in the field of 
Indian affairs.  See Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 551– 
552 (1974) (“The plenary power of Congress to deal with the
special problems of Indians is drawn both explicitly and im-
plicitly from the Constitution itself ”).  At the founding, “ ‘In-
dian affairs were more an aspect of military and foreign pol-
icy than a subject of domestic or municipal law.’ ”  Lara, 541 
U. S., at 201.  With this in mind, we have posited that Con-
gress’s legislative authority might rest in part on “the Con-
stitution’s adoption of preconstitutional powers necessarily 
inherent in any Federal Government, namely, powers that
this Court has described as ‘necessary concomitants of na-
tionality.’ ”  Ibid. (quoting United States v. Curtiss-Wright 
Export Corp., 299 U. S. 304, 315–322 (1936)). 

Finally,  the  “trust  relationship  between  the  United 
States and the Indian people” informs the exercise of legis-
lative power.  United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, 225– 
226 (1983).  As we have explained, the Federal Government 
has  “ ‘charged  itself  with  moral  obligations  of  the  highest 
responsibility  and  trust’ ”  toward  Indian  tribes.    United  
States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U. S. 162, 176 (2011); 
Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U. S. 286, 296 (1942) 
(“[T]his  Court  has  recognized  the  distinctive  obligation  of 
trust incumbent upon the Government in its dealings with
these  dependent  and  sometimes  exploited  people”).  The 
contours  of  this  “special  relationship”  are  undefined. 
Mancari, 417 U. S., at 552. 

In sum, Congress’s power to legislate with respect to In-
dians is well established and broad.  Consistent with that 
breadth, we have not doubted Congress’s ability to legislate 
across a wide range of areas, including criminal law, domes-
tic violence, employment, property, tax, and trade.  See, e.g.,