Page:Haaland v. Brackeen.pdf/76

34 developments. This Court itself has acknowledged that its plenary-power cases embodied a “trend … away from the idea of inherent Indian sovereignty as a bar to state jurisdiction.” Id., at 172, and n. 7.

It is no coincidence either that this Court’s plenary-power jurisprudence emerged in the same era as Indian boarding schools and other assimilationist policies. See D. Moore & M. Steele, Revitalizing Tribal Sovereignty in Treatymaking, 97 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 137, 142 (2022). Rather, “[f]ederal bureaucratic control over Indian leadership and governments ran parallel to the government’s control over Indian children” during this period. Fletcher & Singel 930. Indian boarding schools and other intrusive “federal educational programs … could not have been implemented without federal control of reservation governance.” Ibid. Nor could any of these federal intrusions on internal tribal affairs have been possible without this Court’s plenary-power misadventure.

I do not mean to overstate the point. Even in the heyday of the plenary-power theory, this Court never doubted that Tribes retain a variety of self-government powers. It has always acknowledged that Tribes are “a separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations.” Kagama, 118 U. S., at 381–382. They may “make their own substantive law in internal matters.” Martinez, 436 U. S., at 55. They may define their own membership. Roff, 168 U. S., at 222. They may set probate rules of their choice. Jones v. Meehan, 175 U. S. 1, 29 (1899). And—especially relevant here—they may handle their own family-law matters, Fisher v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. of Mont., 424 U. S. 382, 387 (1976) (per curiam), and domestic disputes, United States v. Quiver, 241 U. S. 602, 605 (1916). But for a period at least, this Court let itself drift from the “basic policy of Worcester,” and with it the Constitution’s promise of tribal sovereignty. Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 219 (1959).