Page:Haaland v. Brackeen.pdf/60

18 States v. Lara, 541 U. S. 193, 218 (2004) (, concurring in judgment) (describing the Act as “constitutionally suspect”); M. Pearl, Originalism and the Indians, 93 Tulane L. Rev. 269, 330–331 (2018) (Pearl) (similar). But the sponsors of that Act sought only to increase the role of bicameral legislation in managing Indian affairs. See Antoine v. Washington, 420 U. S. 194, 202–203 (1975). The law did not purport to “invalidat[e] or impai[r]” any existing “obligation of any treaty lawfully made and ratified.” 25 U. S. C. §71. And the law did not abridge, nor could it have validly abridged, the long-settled view of tribal sovereignty. In fact, the United States proceeded to enter into roughly 400 further executive agreements with the Tribes practically indistinguishable from the treaties that came before. See generally V. Deloria & R. DeMallie, Documents of American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties, Agreements, and Conventions, 1775–1979 (1999). Keep this original understanding of tribal sovereignty in mind. It provides an essential point of framing.

Just as the Constitution safeguards the sovereign authority of Tribes, it comes with a “concomitant jurisdictional limit on the reach of state law” over Indian affairs. McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164, 171 (1973). As this Court has consistently recognized, “[t]he policy of leaving Indians free from state jurisdiction and control is deeply rooted in the Nation’s history.” Rice v. Olson, 324 U. S. 786, 789 (1945). Instead, responsibility for managing interactions with the Tribes rests exclusively with the federal government. To appreciate this point, walk through time once more.

Since the first days of British rule, the Crown oversaw—and retained the power to dictate—the Colonies’ engagement with the Indian Tribes. See Clinton 1995, at