Thomas, J., concurring in judgment
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 22–227
LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. BRIAN W. COUGHLIN
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
[June 15, 2023]
Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment.
As I have explained, to the extent that tribes possess sovereign immunity at all, that immunity does not extend to “suits arising out of a tribe’s commercial activities conducted beyond its territory.” Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U. S. 782, 815 (2014) (dissenting opinion). Because respondent’s stay-enforcement motion arose from petitioners’ off-reservation commercial conduct, petitioners lack sovereign immunity regardless of the Bankruptcy Code’s abrogation provision. I therefore concur in the Court’s judgment.
“Tribal immunity is a judicial doctrine that is not mandated by the Constitution, … developed almost by accident, was reiterated with little analysis, and does not reflect the realities of modern-day Indian tribes.” Upper Skagit Tribe v. Lundgren, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 12) (internal quotation marks omitted). To the extent that tribes have any sovereign immunity at all, it is a common-law immunity. Bay Mills, 572 U. S., at 816–817. Unlike the sovereign immunity enjoyed by the States under the Constitution, common-law immunity “is not a freestanding right that applies of its own force when a sovereign faces suit in the courts of another.” Id., at 816 (in-
