Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari in Quentin Veneno, Jr. v. United States (No. 24-5191, decided November 10, 2025). Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented from the denial, arguing the Court should reconsider United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375 (1886), which established federal plenary power over Native American Tribes' internal affairs. The dissent contends Congress lacks constitutional authority to regulate crimes between tribal members on tribal land without reference to commerce, as the Major Crimes Act of 1885 attempted to do.
Issues
Whether the Supreme Court should grant certiorari to reconsider United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375 (1886), and the plenary power theory that grants the federal government broad authority over Native American Tribes' internal affairs. Justice Gorsuch argues that this theory lacks constitutional basis and should be corrected.
Holdings
The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in Quentin Veneno, Jr. v. United States. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, arguing that the Court should reconsider United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375 (1886), which established the theory of federal plenary power over Native American Tribes' internal affairs. The dissent contends that this theory lacks constitutional foundation and stems from archaic prejudices, and that Tribes possess sovereign authority to govern their internal affairs including addressing crimes among tribal members.
Legal Principles
The dissent argues that Congress's authority to regulate Indian tribes must derive from the Constitution's enumerated powers, not from a 'plenary power' theory established in United States v. Kagama. The document critiques the 'plenary power' doctrine as lacking constitutional foundation and rooted in archaic prejudices, emphasizing that Native American Tribes are 'sovereign and independent states' with inherent sovereign powers over their internal affairs, including the power to redress crimes involving their own peoples.
Precedent Name
- United States v. Kagama
- United States v. Wheeler
- Haaland v. Brackeen
- Worcester v. Georgia
Cited Statute
- Treaty with Tribes
- Major Crimes Act of 1885
- Act of March 3, 1871
Judge Name
Justice Gorsuch
Passage Text
- Petitioner asks us to grant review in this case to reconsider United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375 (1886). Kagama helped usher into our case law the theory that the federal government enjoys plenary power over the internal affairs of Native American Tribes. It is a theory that should make this Court blush. Not only does that notion lack any foundation in the Constitution; its roots lie instead only in archaic prejudices.
- But our Constitution makes no mention of that doctrine. Nor, at least as conceived by the Marshall Court shortly after the Nation's founding, does the doctrine imply plenary federal power over internal tribal affairs. As that Court put it, even after the European discovery of North America, Tribes remained distinct, independent political communities retaining their original natural rights.
- As sovereign and independent states, Native American Tribes have governed their internal affairs from time immemorial. Among the sovereign powers Tribes have always enjoyed is the power to redress crimes involving their own peoples. A great many Tribes today have courts, not wholly unlike those found in States and counties across the country, open to render justice when one tribal member commits an offense against another on tribal land.