The gives Congress broad authority over Native American affairs, stemming from the Constitution. This power shapes federal-tribal relations, influencing legislation and policy decisions that impact and self-governance.
While extensive, Congress' plenary power isn't absolute. Courts can review Indian affairs legislation, and the trust responsibility requires the government to act in tribes' best interests. This balance affects tribal rights and federal obligations.
Congressional Authority Over Indian Affairs
Plenary Power and Congressional Authority
Top images from around the web for Plenary Power and Congressional Authority
The Dual Court System | American Government View original
Congress has plenary power over Indian affairs, meaning it has broad and exclusive authority to legislate on matters related to Native American tribes
This authority is derived from the Indian Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution) and the Treaty Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)
The Supreme Court affirmed Congress' plenary power in (1886), stating that Congress has the power to regulate the affairs of Native American tribes as "dependent domestic nations"
This power includes the authority to regulate commerce with tribes, manage tribal lands, and define the status of tribes and their members
Judicial Review and Constitutionality
Despite Congress' plenary power, the Supreme Court has the authority to review the constitutionality of Indian affairs legislation through judicial review
The Court has generally been deferential to Congress in this area, rarely striking down legislation related to Native American affairs
However, the Court has occasionally invalidated laws that violate individual rights or exceed Congress' authority under the Constitution (e.g., , 1980)
The Court has also recognized some limitations on Congress' power, such as the requirement that legislation be rationally related to Congress' trust responsibility to the tribes (, 1977)
Federal-Tribal Relationship
Trust Responsibility and Federal Indian Policy
The federal-tribal relationship is characterized by the trust responsibility, a legal and moral obligation of the federal government to protect tribal , lands, and resources
This responsibility stems from treaties, statutes, and the historical relationship between the federal government and Native American tribes
The trust responsibility requires the federal government to act in the best interests of the tribes and to consult with them on matters affecting their welfare
Federal Indian policy has evolved over time, from the early era of treaty-making and removal to the current era of and government-to-government relations
Evolution of Federal Indian Policy
In the early 19th century, federal policy focused on removing tribes from their ancestral lands and relocating them to reservations ( of 1830)
The late 19th century saw a shift towards assimilation, with policies aimed at breaking up tribal lands and encouraging Native Americans to adopt white cultural practices ( of 1887)
In the 1930s, the (1934) sought to strengthen tribal governments and restore tribal lands
The termination era of the 1950s and 1960s aimed to end the federal-tribal relationship and assimilate Native Americans into mainstream society
The self-determination era, beginning in the 1970s, has emphasized tribal sovereignty and the government-to-government relationship between the federal government and tribes ( of 1975)
Tribal Sovereignty and Its Limitations
Inherent Tribal Sovereignty and Self-Governance
Tribal sovereignty is the inherent right of Native American tribes to govern themselves and manage their internal affairs
This sovereignty predates the formation of the United States and is recognized in treaties, statutes, and Supreme Court decisions
Tribes have the authority to establish their own governments, laws, and courts, and to regulate activities within their territories (e.g., taxation, land use, and membership)
The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (1975) and subsequent legislation have strengthened tribal self-governance by allowing tribes to contract with the federal government to administer programs and services
Limitations on Tribal Authority
Despite their inherent sovereignty, tribes are subject to limitations imposed by Congress and the Supreme Court
In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903), the Supreme Court held that Congress has the power to unilaterally abrogate treaties with Native American tribes, emphasizing Congress' plenary authority over Indian affairs
Tribes generally lack criminal over non-Indians within their territories (Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 1978), although Congress has restored some tribal jurisdiction in certain circumstances ( of 2013)
Tribal authority may also be limited by federal statutes, such as the (1968), which applies many of the protections of the Bill of Rights to tribal governments
The extent of tribal sovereignty and the scope of tribal authority continue to be shaped by ongoing legal and political developments, as well as the evolving relationship between tribes and the federal government