United States v. Lara — Thomas, J., concurring

Summary

Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment, arguing that current tribal sovereignty precedent contains incompatible assumptions regarding Congress's power to regulate tribes and the tribes' inherent sovereign authority. While doubting Congress's constitutional power to alter sovereignty, he accepted that existing case law treats tribes as separate sovereigns whose jurisdiction stems from distinct sources, thereby precluding double jeopardy bar to successive federal prosecution. Separate opinions included Justice Souter dissenting to argue congressional delegation could not restore inherent sovereignty, and Justices Kennedy and Stevens concurring to agree on resolution through statutory intent or historical basis.