plenary power

What happened

Plenary power is the Supreme Court's term for Congress's broad authority over tribes. In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903), the Court said "Plenary authority over the tribal relations of the Indians has been exercised by Congress from the beginning, and the power has always been deemed a political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the government." In United States v. Kagama (1886), it tied that power to protection: "there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power."

The Court has located the power in the Indian Commerce Clause, the Treaty Clause and the Constitution's structure. In United States v. Lara (2004), it said these grant Congress "plenary and exclusive" powers over Indian tribes. In Haaland v. Brackeen (2023), it added that the power is "plenary within its sphere, but even a sizeable sphere has borders."

The doctrine has critics inside the Court. Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment in Lara, wrote: "the time has come to reexamine the premises and logic of our tribal sovereignty cases." He said he could not agree that the Constitution grants Congress plenary power to calibrate the "metes and bounds of tribal sovereignty."

Plenary power cuts both ways. It underlay Lone Wolf's holding that Congress could override treaty terms, and in United States v. Lara the Court relied on it to uphold a law that restored tribal powers.

Summarized with AI assistance from 5 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error