delivered the opinion of the Court.

An Act of Congress providing for distribution of funds to certain Delaware Indians, pursuant to an award by the Indian Claims Commission to redress a breach by the United States of an 1854 treaty, is challenged in this action by a group of Delawares excluded from the distribution. The question presented by this litigation is whether their exclusion denies them equal protection of the laws in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.1

I

A brief history of the migrations of the Delaware Indians will serve as a helpful backdrop to the litigation.2 The Delawares originally resided in the Northeastern United States, in what are now southern New York, New Jersey, part of Pennsyl*76vania, and part of Delaware. The Munsee Indians, related to the Delawares, resided in the northern part of that area. Under pressure from new settlers, both the Delawares and the Munsees were gradually forced to move westward, and by 1820 they were geographically scattered. During the trek westward the main branch of the Delawares stopped for varying lengths of time in what are now Ohio, Indiana, and Missouri, while others went to Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. In 1818, the Delawares in Indiana ceded their lands in that State to the United States in return for a promise of land west of the Mississippi River.3 The Delawares then moved to Missouri for a short time, but under an 1829 “supplementary article” to the 1818 treaty, were again moved to what they were told would be their permanent residence on a reservation in Kansas.4 The establishment of this reservation was purportedly the fulfillment of the promise made in the 1818 treaty to provide western land in return for their agreement to leave their Indiana lands.

Some Delawares, however, never joined the main body of the Delawares on the Kansas reservation. Among these was a small group that migrated to Oklahoma and settled with the Wichita and Caddo Indians. For a time during the 1850’s and 1860’s, the Delawares in Kansas expected this group to rejoin the main body of the tribe there, but these Indians, called the “Absentee Delawares” in this suit, stayed with the Wichitas and Caddos.5 Their descendants *77have remained in Oklahoma through the present day, and are a federally recognized Indian tribe.6

By the 1850’s, the main body of the Delaware Nation, together with a small number of Munsees, had assembled on the “permanent” reservation in Kansas at the confluence of the Kansas and Missouri Rivers. But the hope that the Kansas reservation would be the Delawares’ last stopping place was short-lived. In 1866, the Delawares living on the reservation signed a treaty, under which they were to move to “Indian Country” in Oklahoma to live with the Cherokees.7 Each Delaware moving to Indian Country and enrolling on the proper register was to receive a life estate of 160 acres of Cherokee land and the right to become a member of the Cherokee Nation. Most of the Delawares on the Kansas reservation accepted these conditions and moved to Oklahoma, where they were gradually assimilated for most purposes into the Cherokee Nation, and were permitted to share equally with the Cherokees in the general funds of that tribe. See, e. g., Delaware Indians v. Cherokee Nation, 193 U. S. 127 (1904); Cherokee Nation v. Journeycake, 155 U. S. 196 (1894). Despite their association with the Cherokees, these Indians, called “Cherokee Delawares” in this suit, have over the years maintained a distinct group identity, and they are today a federally recognized tribe.8

*78The 1866 treaty did not require all Delawares on the Kansas reservation to move to Oklahoma. Rather, the treaty provided that any Delawares who agreed to “dissolve their relations with their tribe” and become citizens of the United States might elect to remain in Kansas. Such Delawares would receive 80 acres of land in Kansas in fee simple and a “just proportion” of the tribe’s credits “then held in trust by the United States,” but thereafter could not “further participate in their [tribal] councils, nor share in their property or annuities.”9 Twenty-one adult Delawares chose to accept these conditions and remain in Kansas.10 Their descendants, called “Kansas Delawares” in this suit, are not a federally recognized tribe.11

In 1854, while they still lived on the Kansas reservation, the main body of the Delawares signed a treaty with the *79United States under which the United States was to sell certain reservation tribal “trust” lands at public auction. In 1856 and 1857, the United States breached the treaty by selling the lands privately and not at public auction. Approximately 100 years later, the Cherokee and Absentee Delawares brought separate but identical claims before the Indian Claims Commission arising out of this breach of the 1854 treaty. The Commission found that the two groups were “entitled jointly to represent the entire Delaware Tribe,” Absentee Delaware Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States, 21 Ind. Cl. Comm. 344, 345 (1969), citing Delaware Tribe v. United States, 2 Ind. Cl. Comm. 253 (1952), aff'd as to parties, 130 Ct. Cl. 782, 128 F. Supp. 391 (1955), and determined that the private sales of the trust lands had realized $1,385,617.81 less than would have been realized for the tribe at public auction. The Commission awarded the tribe that sum plus interest, or a total of $9,168,171.13.12 21 Ind. Cl. Comm., at 369-370. Congress appropriated funds to pay the award and later enacted Pub. L. 92-456 providing for its distribution.13 *80The statute limited distribution to the Cherokee and Absentee Delawares, with amounts payable determined under a formula provided in 25 U. S. C. § 1294. Ten percent of the *81total sum was to be set aside for the two tribal bodies, and was to be retained by the United States to the credit of the tribes, to be used in ways approved by the Secretary *82of the Interior. The remaining 90% was to be divided among Cherokee Delawares whose names appeared on a “per capita payroll” described in § 1292 (c)(1), and among Absentee Delawares whose names appeared on a “constructed base census roll” described in § 1292 (c)(2).14

Appellee Weeks, on behalf of all the Kansas Delawares, instituted this action against the United States, the Cherokee Delawares, the Absentee Delawares, and the Secretary of the Interior in the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, alleging that the exclusion of the Kansas Delawares from the distribution of the award constituted a denial of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A three-judge court was convened.15 The court declared, one judge dissenting, that Congress’ failure to include the Kansas Delawares among those entitled to share in the award under Pub. L. 92-456 violated the Due Process Clause. The court also enjoined the Secretary of the Interior from distributing any of the appropriated funds pending amendment of the distribution provisions of the statute, or enactment of further legislation providing for distribution of the funds. Weeks v. United States, 406 F. Supp. 1309, 1346-1347 (1975). Each defendant separately appealed to this Court, the Secretary of the Interior in No. 75-1495, the Cherokee Delawares in No. 75-1301, and the Absentee Delawares in No. 75-1335. We *83noted probable jurisdiction of the three appeals, 426 U. S. 933 (1976). We reverse.16

II

Appellants differ on the issue of whether this suit presents a nonjusticiable political question because of Congress’ pervasive authority, rooted in the Constitution, to control tribal property. Stated in other words, they differ on the issue of whether congressional exercise of control over tribal property is final and not subject to judicial scrutiny, since the power over distribution of tribal property has “been committed by the Constitution” to the Congress, Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 211 (1962), and since “[t]he non justiciability of a political question is primarily a function of the separation of powers,” id., at 210. Appellants Cherokee and Absentee Delawares, citing Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 553 (1903), argue that Congress’ distribution plan reflects a congressional determination not subject to scrutiny by the Judicial Branch, and that the District Court therefore erred in reaching the merits of this action. Appellant Secretary of the Interior, on the other hand, submits that the plenary power *84of Congress in matters of Indian affairs “does not mean that all federal legislation concerning Indians is . . . immune from judicial scrutiny or that claims, such as those presented by [appellees], are not justiciable.” Brief for Appellants in No. 75-1495, p. 19 n. 19. We agree with the Secretary of the Interior.

The statement in Lone Wolf, supra, at 565, that the power of Congress “has always been deemed a political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the government,” however pertinent to the question then before the Court of congressional power to abrogate treaties, see generally Antoine v. Washington, 420 U. S. 194, 201-204 (1975), has not deterred this Court, particularly in this day, from scrutinizing Indian legislation to determine whether it violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. See, e. g., Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535 (1974). “The power of Congress over Indian affairs may be of a plenary nature; but it is not absolute.” United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 329 U. S. 40, 54 (1946) (plurality opinion); see also United States v. Creek Nation, 295 U. S. 103, 109-110 (1935); cf. United States v. Jim, 409 U. S. 80, 82 n. 3 (1972).

The question is therefore what judicial review of Pub. L. 92-456 is appropriate in light of the broad congressional power to prescribe the distribution of property of Indian tribes. The general rule emerging from our decisions ordinarily requires the judiciary to defer to congressional determination of what is the best or most efficient use for which tribal funds should be employed. Sizemore v. Brady, 235 U. S. 441, 449 (1914). Thus, Congress may choose to differentiate among groups of Indians in the same tribe in making a distribution, Simmons v. Seelatsee, 384 U. S. 209 (1966), aff’g 244 F. Supp. 808 (ED Wash. 1965), or on the other hand to expand a class of tribal beneficiaries entitled to share in royalties from tribal lands, United States v. Jim, *85supra, or to devote to tribal use mineral rights under allotments that otherwise would have gone to individual allottees, Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hollowbreast, 425 U. S. 649 (1976). The standard of review most recently expressed is that the legislative judgment should not be disturbed “[a]s long as the special treatment can be tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress’ unique obligation toward the Indians . . . .” Morton v. Mancari, supra, at 555.

III

We are persuaded on the record before us that Congress’ omission of the appellee Kansas Delawares from the distribution under Pub. L. 92-456 was “tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress’ unique obligation toward the Indians.”

First, the Kansas Delawares are not a recognized tribal entity, but are simply individual Indians with no vested rights in any tribal property. Public Law 92-456 distributes tribal rather than individually owned property, for the funds were appropriated to pay an award redressing the breach of a treaty with a tribal entity, the Delaware Nation. It was that tribal entity, represented jointly in the suit before the Indian Claims Commission by the appellants Cherokee Delawares and Absentee Delawares, that suffered from the United States’ breach, and both the Commission award and the appropriation by Congress were the means of compensating that tribal entity for the wrong done to it. Indeed, the Indian Claims Commission is not empowered to hear individuals’ claims, but may only adjudicate claims held by an “Indian tribe, band, or other identifiable group.” 25 U. S. C. §§ 70a, 70i; see Minnesota Chippewa Tribe v. United States, 161 Ct. Cl. 258, 270-271, 315 F. 2d 906, 913-914 (1963). As tribal property, the appropriated funds were subject to the exercise by Congress of its traditional broad authority over the management and distribution of lands and property held by recognized tribes, an authority “drawn both explicitly and implicitly from the Constitution itself.” Morton v. Mancari, *86supra, at 551-552. This authority of Congress to control tribal assets has been termed “one of the most fundamental expressions, if not the major expression, of the constitutional power of Congress over Indian affairs . . . .” F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 94, 97 (1942).

The ancestors of the Kansas Delawares severed their relations with the tribe when they elected under the 1866 treaty to become United States citizens entitled to participate in tribal assets only to the extent of their “just proportion . . . of the cash value of the credits of said tribe . . . then held in trust by the United States.” (Emphasis supplied.) We cannot say that the decision of Congress to exclude the descendants of individual Delaware Indians who ended their tribal membership and took their proportionate share of tribal property as constituted more than a century ago, and to distribute the appropriated funds only to members of or persons closely affiliated with the Cherokee and Absentee Delaware Tribes, was not “tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress' unique obligation toward the Indians.”

Second, the exclusion of the Kansas Delawares under Pub. L. 92-456 was not their first exclusion from participation in a distribution of tribal assets. In 1904 Congress appropriated $150,000 to settle claims of the Delaware Tribe of Indians, one of them arising out of another injustice done to the Delawares under the 1854 treaty, unrelated to the breach which forms the basis for the distribution under Pub. L. 92-456.17 See United States v. Delaware Tribe of Indians, 192 Ct. Cl. 385, 403-405, 427 F. 2d 1218, 1229-1230 (1970). The 1904 Act directed the Secretary of the Treasury to pay the settlement to the tribe known in this suit as the Cherokee Delawares “as said tribe shall in council direct,” thereby excluding both *87Absentee and Kansas Delawares. 33 Stat. 189, 222. This distribution was limited to the Cherokee Delawares although it was compensation, inter alia, for a wrong to the Delawares in 1854, before the Kansas Delawares split off from the tribe. Some Kansas Delawares unsuccessfully sought to participate in the distribution but, as noted by the District Court in this case, “were denied participation on grounds similar to some of those argued in the present case.” 406 F. Supp., at 1321 n. 15. The Comptroller of the Treasury concluded that “ [m] anifestly [the Kansas Delawares] were not entitled to participate in the distribution of annuities or other funds due or belonging to the Delaware tribe” for:

“The provision in the [A]ct of April 21, 1904, supra, authorizes and directs payment to the 'Delaware tribe of Indians residing in the Cherokee Nation, as said tribe shall in council direct’ . . . . The proviso immediately following the appropriation in the [A]ct emphasizes the clear indication that the appropriation was made for the tribe as distinguished from the Delaware Indians who had severed their tribal relations and become citizens of the United States.” 11 Comp. Dec. 496, 500 (1905) (emphasis in original).

While this precedent of excluding the Kansas Delawares from the 1904 distribution does not of itself legitimate their exclusion from the present distribution statute, their earlier exclusion nevertheless indicates that Congress has historically distinguished them from the Cherokee Delawares in distributing an award based in part on a breach of the very treaty involved in this litigation.

Third, Congress deliberately limited the distribution under Pub. L. 92-456 to the Cherokee and Absentee Delawares because of substantial problems it apprehended might attend a wider distribution. H. R. 5200, the bill originally introduced to distribute the funds, had contained a “catchall” clause authorizing distribution “to include the names of all *88persons born on or prior to and living on the date of this Act who are lineal descendants of members of the Delaware Tribe as it existed in 1854 . . . .” 18 This catchall would have been analogous to a clause in a 1968 statute distributing funds to compensate the Delaware Tribe for the United States’ inadequate payment to them when they were moved off their Indiana lands in 1818.19 Under the 1968 catchall clause, all lineal descendants of the tribe as it existed in 1818 were permitted to share in the distribution, 25 U. S. C. § 1181 (d), and about 300 Kansas Delawares were thereby allowed to participate in the distribution of the award redressing the 1818 wrong.

The omission of the catchall provision from Pub. L. 92-456, as finally enacted, followed legislative hearings at which the Cherokee and Absentee Delawares testified. At these hearings they directed Congress’ attention to problems that had arisen when Munsee Indians, in addition to the Kansas Delawares, had claimed eligibility under the catchall provision of the 1968 statute.20 Because of a dispute over the eligibility of the Munsees to participate under the catchall clause, there had been inordinate delays in the distribution of the funds. Indeed, as late as 1972 many of the Munsees’ claims *89were still unresolved, and distribution under the 1968 statute was virtually paralyzed. Hearings on H. R. 5200 before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., 12, 22, 59, 79, 97, 105-106, 113 (Mar. 13, 1972) (unpublished).

We recognize, as did the District Court, that Congress omitted the catchall provision from the present statute in order to avoid a repetition of the problems with the Munsees, and that Congress was not “made aware that the limitation of distribution to [the Cherokee and Absentee Delawares] would exclude a group which had lived on the Kansas Delaware lands and which could trace their Delaware descendancy as the Kansas Delawares do.” 406 F. Supp., at 1332.21 But we do not conclude from Congress’ ignorance of the effect of the elimination of the catchall on the Kansas Delawares that the statute is therefore irrational. Congress chose to limit distribution of the award to the Cherokee and the Absentee Delawares, in whose names the Delawares’ claims had been prosecuted before the Indian Claims Commission, and whom the Commission had found to represent the interests of all the Delawares. Regardless of Congress’ knowledge of the effect of this limitation on the Kansas Delawares, we cannot say that the congressional choice, though predicated upon the Munsee experience under the 1968 statute, does not rationally support its decision to avoid undue delay, administrative difficulty, and potentially unmeritorious claims by distributing the award only to the Cherokee and Absentee Delawares.22

*90IV

Our conclusion that the exclusion of the Kansas Delawares from distribution under Pub. L. 92-456 does not offend the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of course does not preclude Congress from revising the distribution scheme to include the Kansas Delawares. The distribution authorized by Pub. L. 92-456 has not yet occurred, and Congress has the power to revise its original allocation. United States v. Jim, 409 U. S., at 82-83.

Reversed.

dissenting.

At the outset of these proceedings the Indian Claims Commission noted that in accordance with the Indian Claims Commission Act any recovery for a breach of the treaties of 1829 and 1854 “must be for the benefit of all the descendants of the Delaware Nation as constituted in 1829 and 1854,” Delaware Tribe of Indians v. United States, 2 Ind. Cl. Comm. 253, 270-271 (1952).1 In due course the Commission found *92that the 1854 treaty had been breached in 1856 and 1857 when the United States disposed of the tribal lands in Kansas by private, not public, sale for about half their fair value. The opinion accompanying the judgment of the Commission reiterated that the named plaintiffs “were entitled jointly to represent the entire Delaware Tribe,” Absentee Delaware Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States, 21 Ind. Cl. Comm. 344, 345 (1969). Thereafter, Congress appropriated the amount required by the judgment, 83 Stat. 447, 453, and adopted the distribution statute at issue here, which was intended to satisfy that judgment, 25 U. S. C. §§ 1291-1297 (1970 ed., Supp. V).

Appellees, the “Kansas Delawares,” are members of the class represented by the plaintiffs in the Indian Claims Commission proceeding.2 There is no question about the fact that they are actual lineal descendants of members of the Delaware Tribe of 1854. Nor is there any question about the fact that their exclusion from the distribution statute is the consequence of a malfunction of the legislative process rather than a deliberate choice by Congress. At the urging of appellants Congress adopted an amendment to the bill in order to be sure that descendants of the Munsees—who had not been members of the Delaware Tribe since prior to 1818— would not participate in the award. Unfortunately, the amendment had the unintended consequence of also excluding the Kansas Delawares, whose ancestors were members of *93the tribe in 1854 and who suffered precisely the same wrong as those whose descendants will share in the award on a per capita basis.3

These facts are undisputed. They make it perfectly clear that the special treatment of the Kansas Delawares does not in fact represent any rational attempt at “fulfillment of Congress’ unique obligation toward the Indians . . . ." Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 555. I think it is equally clear that each of the three hypothetical justifications for the exclusion *94of the Kansas Delawares advanced by the majority merely emphasizes the lack of any rational explanation for the legislative malfunction because each of the justifications would, if valid, require a different classification.

First, it is suggested that the Kansas Delawares were properly excluded because they terminated their membership in the tribe before the claim was reduced to judgment. But so did the Cherokees. They ceased being members of the Delaware Tribe in 1867, when they joined the Cherokee Nation.4 Moreover, some of those who would share in the distribution on behalf of the Absentee Delawares are not members of that tribe.5 Resignation from the tribe after the time of the wrong does not provide a consistent basis for treating the Kansas Delawares differently from the Cherokees or the Absentees.6

*95Second, it is pointed out that the Kansas Delawares did not participate in the $150,000 distribution appropriated by Congress in 1904 to settle a claim arising out of another breach of the 1854 treaty. But neither did the Absentee Delawares. The reason is perfectly clear. The claim involved in that settlement had been asserted pursuant to a special provision in a Cherokee allotment statute designed to resolve all claims which “the Cherokee tribe, or any band thereof, . . . may have against the United States . . . ." 32 Stat. 726. Obviously, only the Cherokee Delawares could qualify as a band of the Cherokee Tribe. That precedent does not provide any basis for treating the Kansas Delawares differently from the Absentee Delawares, or for differentiating among Delawares in a proceeding brought on behalf of all descendants of the Delaware Nation as constituted in 1829 and 1854.7

*96Third, it is said that the amendment excluding the Kansas Delawares from the award is valid because (a) it was intended to exclude the Munsees, and (b) there were valid reasons for excluding the Munsees. The Munsees were the object of special legislative concern because the processing of their claims under a 1968 distribution statute had created administrative burdens and delay. They were properly excluded because their ancestors were not members of the tribe when the wrong occurred. Neither of these reasons has any relevance to the Kansas Delawares. They are admittedly lineal descendants of victims of the wrong and they had shared in the 1968 award in such an orderly manner that Congress was not even aware of their separate status. It is thus ironic—perhaps even perverse—to justify the special treatment of the Kansas Delawares by including them in a class whose other members were properly excluded from the award for reasons which have no application whatsoever to the Kansas Delawares. Because the Kansas Delawares were so administratively inoffensive that they literally became invisible they will fail to share in the distribution as a result of a decision to avoid administrative difficulty.

The statutory exclusion of the Kansas Delawares from any share in the fund appropriated to pay a judgment in favor of a class to which they belong is manifestly unjust and arbitrary. Neither the actual explanation, nor any of the hypothetical explanations, is “tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress’ unique obligation toward the Indians.” But having said all this, I must confront the ultimate question whether the statute is therefore unconstitutional.

*97Improbable as the possibility seems, I am not prepared to say that if Congress had actually reviewed the status of the Kansas Delawares, it might not have found some principled basis for treating them differently from other Delawares. And it is clear that the discrimination, far from evidencing actual discriminatory intent, is the consequence of a legislative accident, perhaps caused by nothing more than the unfortunate fact that Congress is too busy to do all of its work as carefully as it should. I must also acknowledge that Congress followed accepted legislative procedures in enacting the statute. Finally, I am most reluctant to suggest that the constitutionality of legislation should turn on the actual motivation, or the lack thereof, of the legislators who participated in the legislative process. Perhaps, therefore, the Court is following a wise course in declining to intervene in an area where the greatest deference is due Congress.

Nevertheless, four considerations persuade me that this legislative classification is invalid. First, the members of the class whose rights were adjudicated by the Indian Claims Commission have more than an ordinary interest in equal treatment.8 Second, there is no need for any discrimination at all within this class of litigants; this, therefore, is not a case in which the need to draw some line may justify the otherwise arbitrary character of the particular line which has been drawn.9 Third, no principled justification for the particular *98discrimination against the Kansas Delawares has been identified. And fourth, there is no reason to believe that the discrimination is the product of an actual legislative choice.10 Under these circumstances I conclude that there has been a deprivation of property without the “due process of lawmaking” that the Fifth Amendment guarantees.11

with whom The Chief Justice joins, concurring in part and concurring in the result.

I join Parts I and II of the Court’s opinion, but otherwise I concur only in the result.

For me, the reversal of the District Court’s judgment is not a result that is so inevitable and so easily and smoothly reached as a reading of Part III of the Court’s opinion makes it appear. The Court’s justifications for exclusion of the Kansas Delawares are not very persuasive. The first—favoritism toward tribal Indians—is undermined by the fact that Absentee Delawares who are not members of that tribe nevertheless are entitled to participate. Ante, at 82 n. 14. The second—exclusion from a prior distribution—is troublesome because it is difficult for me to see how perceived prior unfair treatment buttresses further unfairness. And I wonder about the statement, ante, at 87, that Congress “has his*91torically distinguished" the Kansas Delawares from the Cherokee Delawares in distributing tribal awards, when in fact both participated in the 1968 allocation that Congress authorized for the Delawares. The third justification—administrative convenience in eliminating the catchall clause—may have some weight. But, as the opinion acknowledges, ante, at 88-89, there was no problem with the Kansas Delawares in the distribution of the 1968 award; the administrative difficulty was only with the Munsees.

Nevertheless, having said all this, I am not persuaded that the Court errs in its conclusion. For me, the case is one of that rare type in which the argument on each side is not at all strong. With the litigation in this lukewarm posture, I conclude that we must acknowledge that there necessarily is a large measure of arbitrariness in distributing an award for a century-old wrong. One could regard the distribution as a windfall for whichever beneficiaries are now favored. In light of the difficulty in determining appropriate standards for the selection of those who are to receive the benefits, I cannot say that the distribution directed by the Congress is unreasonable and constitutionally impermissible. Congress must have a large measure of flexibility in allocating Indian awards, and what it has done here is not beyond the constitutional pale.