throbber

`(Slip Opinion)
`
`
`
` OCTOBER TERM, 2020
`
`
`Syllabus
`
`1
`
` NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
`
`
`
` being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
`
`
`
` The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
`
`
`
`
`
`
` prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
`
` See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`
`
` Syllabus
`
`YELLEN, SECRETARY OF TREASURY v.
`CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS
`
` RESERVATION ET AL.
`CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
`
`THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
` No. 20–543. Argued April 19, 2021—Decided June 25, 2021*
`
`Title V of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES)
`
`Act allocates $8 billion to “Tribal governments” to compensate for un-
`
`
` budgeted expenditures made in response to COVID–19. 42 U. S. C.
`
` §801(a)(2)(B). The question in these cases is whether Alaska Native
`Corporations (ANCs) are eligible to receive any of that $8 billion. Un-
`der the CARES Act, a “Tribal government” is the “recognized govern-
`ing body of an Indian tribe” as defined in the Indian Self-Determina-
`
`tion and Education Assistance Act (ISDA). §§801(g)(5), (1). ISDA, in
`
`turn, defines an “Indian tribe” as “any Indian tribe, band, nation, or
`other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native vil-
`lage or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pur-
`suant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [(ANCSA),] which
`
`is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided
`by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.” 25
`
`U. S. C. §5304(e).
`
`
`Consistent with the Department of the Interior’s longstanding view
`
`that ANCs are Indian tribes under ISDA, the Department of the Treas-
`ury determined that ANCs are eligible for relief under Title V of the
`
`CARES Act, even though ANCs are not “federally recognized tribes”
`(i.e., tribes with which the United States has entered into a govern-
`
`ment-to-government relationship). A number of federally recognized
`
`
`
`——————
`*Together with No. 20–544, Alaska Native Village Corp. Association
`
`et al. v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation et al., also on
`
`certiorari to the same court.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`YELLEN v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF CHEHALIS
`RESERVATION
`
`Syllabus
`tribes sued. The District Court entered summary judgment for the
`
`Treasury Department and the ANCs, but the Court of Appeals for the
`
`District of Columbia Circuit reversed.
`
`Held: ANCs are “Indian tribe[s]” under ISDA and thus eligible for fund-
`ing under Title V of the CARES Act. Pp. 7–28.
`
`
`(a) The ANCs argue that they fall under the plain meaning of ISDA’s
`
`definition of “Indian tribe.” Respondents ask the Court to adopt a
`
`term-of-art construction that equates being “recognized as eligible for
`the special programs and services provided by the United States to In-
`dians because of their status as Indians” with being a “federally recog-
`
`nized tribe.” Pp. 7–25.
`
`
`(1) Under the plain meaning of ISDA, ANCs are Indian tribes.
`ANCs are “established pursuant to” ANCSA and thereby “recognized
`
`as eligible” for that Act’s benefits. ANCSA, which made ANCs eligible
`
`to select tens of millions of acres of land and receive hundreds of mil-
`
`lions of tax-exempt dollars, 43 U. S. C. §§1605, 1610, 1611, is a special
`program provided by the United States to “Indians,” i.e., Alaska Na-
`
`tives. Given that ANCSA is the only statute ISDA’s “Indian tribe” def-
`
`inition mentions by name, eligibility for ANCSA’s benefits satisfies the
`definition’s final “recognized-as-eligible” clause. Pp. 7–11.
`
`
`(2) Respondents ask the Court to read ISDA’s “Indian tribe” defi-
`nition as a term of art. But respondents fail to establish that the lan-
`guage of ISDA’s recognized-as-eligible clause was an accepted way of
`
`saying “a federally recognized tribe” in 1975, when ISDA was passed.
`Nor is the mere inclusion of the word “recognized” enough to import a
`
`
`term-of-art meaning. Respondents also fail to show that the language
`
`of the recognized-as-eligible clause later became a term of art that
`
`should be backdated to ISDA’s passage in 1975. Pp. 11–18.
`
`
`
`(3) Even if ANCs did not satisfy the recognized-as-eligible clause,
`they would still satisfy ISDA’s definition of an “Indian tribe.” If re-
`
`spondents were correct that only a federally recognized tribe can sat-
`
`isfy that clause, then the best way to read the “Indian tribe” definition
`
`would be for the recognized-as-eligible clause not to apply to ANCs at
`
`all. Otherwise, despite being prominently “includ[ed]” in the “Indian
`
`tribe” definition, 25 U. S. C. §5304(e), all ANCs would be excluded by
`a federal-recognition requirement there is no reasonable prospect they
`
`
`
`could ever satisfy. Pp. 18–23.
`
`
`(4) Respondents’ remaining arguments that ANCs are not Indian
`tribes under ISDA are unpersuasive. They first argue that the ANCs
`
`misrepresent how meaningful a role they play under ISDA because the
`
`actual number of ISDA contracts held by ANCs is negligible. This
`point is largely irrelevant. No one would argue that a federally recog-
`
`nized tribe was not an Indian tribe under ISDA just because it had
`
`
`never entered into an ISDA contract. Respondents further argue that
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`3
`
`
`Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021)
`
`
`Syllabus
`
`treating ANCs as Indian tribes would complicate the administration
`
`of ISDA. But respondents point to no evidence of such administrative
`burdens in the 45 years the Executive Branch has treated ANCs as
`
`Indian tribes. Respondents also warn that blessing ANCs’ status un-
`der ISDA will give ANCs ammunition to press for participation in
`
`other statutes that incorporate ISDA’s “Indian tribe” definition. This
`concern cuts both ways, as adopting respondents’ position would pre-
`sumably exclude ANCs from the many other statutes incorporating
`
`
`ISDA’s definition, even those under which ANCs have long benefited.
`Pp. 23–25.
`
`(b) One respondent tribe further argues that the CARES Act ex-
`cludes ANCs regardless of whether they are Indian tribes under ISDA,
`
`because ANCs do not have a “recognized governing body.” In the ISDA
`context, the term “recognized governing body” has long been under-
`
`stood to apply to an ANC’s board of directors, and nothing in either the
`
`CARES Act or ISDA suggests that the term places additional limits on
`
`the kinds of Indian tribes eligible to benefit under the statutes. Pp.
`
`26–27.
`976 F. 3d 15, reversed and remanded.
`SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
`C. J., and BREYER, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined, and in which
`ALITO, J., joined as to Parts I, II–C, II–D, III, and IV. GORSUCH, J., filed
`a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`1
`
`
`
`
` NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
`
` preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
`
`
`
` notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
`
` ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that
`
`
` corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
`
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`
`
`_________________
` Nos. 20–543 and 20–544
`_________________
`JANET L. YELLEN, SECRETARY OF THE
`TREASURY, PETITIONER
`
`20–543
`v.
`CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS
`RESERVATION, ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE CORPORATION
`
`ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS
`
`
`20–544
`v.
`CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS
`
`RESERVATION, ET AL.
`ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
`
`APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`[June 25, 2021]
`JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.*
`
`In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Re-
`
`lief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, 134 Stat. 281. Ti-
`tle V of the Act allocates $8 billion of monetary relief to
`134 Stat. 502, 42 U. S. C.
`“Tribal governments.”
`
`
`§801(a)(2)(B). Under the CARES Act, a “Tribal govern-
`ment” is the “recognized governing body of an Indian tribe”
`as defined in the Indian Self-Determination and Education
`Assistance Act (ISDA). §§801(g)(5), (1). ISDA, in turn, de-
`fines an “Indian tribe” as “any Indian tribe, band, nation,
`
`——————
`*JUSTICE ALITO joins Parts I, II–C, II–D, III, and IV of this opinion.
`
`
`
`

`

`2
`
`
`
`
` YELLEN v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF CHEHALIS
`RESERVATION
`Opinion of the Court
`or other organized group or community, including any
`
`Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as
`defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native
`Claims Settlement Act[,] which is recognized as eligible for
`
`the special programs and services provided by the United
`
`States to Indians because of their status as Indians.” 25
`U. S. C. §5304(e).
`
`The Department of the Treasury asked the Department
`of the Interior, the agency that administers ISDA, whether
`
`Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) meet that definition.
`Consistent with its longstanding view, the Interior Depart-
`ment said yes. The Treasury Department then set aside
`approximately $500 million of CARES Act funding for the
`ANCs. The question presented is whether ANCs are “In-
`dian tribe[s]” under ISDA, and are therefore eligible to re-
`ceive the CARES Act relief set aside by the Treasury De-
`partment. The Court holds that they are.
`I
`This is not the first time the Court has addressed the
`
`
`unique circumstances of Alaska and its indigenous popula-
`tion. See, e.g., Sturgeon v. Frost, 587 U. S. ___ (2019); Stur-
`geon v. Frost, 577 U. S. 424 (2016); Alaska v. Native Village
`of Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U. S. 520 (1998);
`
`Metlakatla Indian Community v. Egan, 369 U. S. 45 (1962).
`
`The “simple truth” reflected in those prior cases is that
`“Alaska is often the exception, not the rule.” Sturgeon, 577
`
`U. S., at 440. To see why, one must first understand the
`
`United States’ unique historical relationship with Alaska
`Natives.
`
`A
`When the United States purchased the Territory of
`
`
`Alaska from Russia in 1867, Alaska Natives lived in com-
`munities dispersed widely across Alaska’s 365 million
`acres. In the decades that followed, “[t]here was never an
`
`
`
`
`

`

`3
`
`
`
` Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`attempt in Alaska to isolate Indians on reservations,” as
`
`
` there had been in the lower 48 States. Metlakatla Indian
`
`
` Community, 369 U. S., at 51. As a consequence, the claims
`of Alaska Natives to Alaskan land remained largely unset-
`tled even following Alaska’s admission to the Union as our
`49th State in 1959.1 See Alaska Statehood Act, §4, 72 Stat.
`339; Sturgeon, 577 U. S., at 429.
`That changed in 1971 with the Alaska Native Claims Set-
`
`tlement Act (ANCSA). 85 Stat. 688, 43 U. S. C. §1601
`
`et seq. ANCSA officially dispensed with the idea of recreat-
`ing in Alaska the system of reservations that prevailed in
`the lower 48 States. It extinguished Alaska Natives’ claims
`to land and hunting rights and revoked all but one of
`Alaska’s existing reservations. §1610. In exchange, “Con-
`gress authorized the transfer of $962.5 million in state and
`federal funds and approximately 44 million acres of Alaska
`land to state-chartered private business corporations that
`were to be formed pursuant to” ANCSA. Native Village of
`
`Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U. S., at 524. These corpo-
`rations are called ANCs.
`Relevant here, ANCs come in two varieties: regional
`
`ANCs and village ANCs. To form the regional ANCs, the
`
`Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to divide Alaska
`
`into 12 geographic regions. §1606(a). Within each region,
`——————
` 1There were some exceptions. Congress created by statute two Alaska
`
`Native reservations: the Annette Islands Reserve in 1891 and the
`
` Klukwan Reserve in 1957. See Act of Mar. 3, 1891, §15, 26 Stat. 1101;
`Act of Sept. 2, 1957, Pub. L. 85–271, 71 Stat. 596. Under the 1936
`
`
` Amendment to the Indian Reorganization Act, ch. 254, 49 Stat. 1250, six
`further reservations were formed. See Letter from T. Sansonetti, Solici-
`
`
` tor of the U. S. Dept. of Interior, to M. Lujan, Jr., Secretary of Interior 33
`
` (Jan. 11, 1993). Alaska also saw the creation of certain “executive order
`
`reserves,” which were more limited in purpose and scope and, like all
`
`reserves in Alaska besides the Annette Islands Reserve, were ultimately
`revoked by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). See gen-
`
`
`erally D. Case & D. Voluck, Alaska Natives and Americans Laws 85–112
`
`(3d ed. 2012).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`4
`
`
`
`
` YELLEN v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF CHEHALIS
`RESERVATION
`Opinion of the Court
`Alaska Natives were instructed to “incorporate under the
`
`laws of Alaska a Regional Corporation to conduct business
`for profit.” §1606(d). To form the village ANCs, the Act
`identified approximately 200 Alaska “Native villages,” a
`
`term encompassing any community of 25 or more Alaska
`
`Natives living together as of the 1970 census. §§1602(c),
`1610(b), 1615(a). For each Alaska Native village, ANCSA
`
`ordered the “Native residents” to create an accompanying
`village corporation to “hold, invest, manage and/or distrib-
`ute lands, property, funds, and other rights and assets for
`and on behalf ” of the village. §§1602(j), 1607(a). ANCSA
`
`
`then directed the Secretary to prepare a roll showing the
`region and, if applicable, village to which each living Alaska
`Native belonged. §1604. Enrolled Alaska Natives then re-
`ceived shares in their respective ANCs. §§1606(g), 1607.
`B
`
`
`In 1975, four years after ANCSA’s enactment, Congress
`passed ISDA. 25 U. S. C. §5301 et seq. ISDA answered the
`call for a “new national policy” of “autonomy” and “control”
`for Native Americans and Alaska Natives. H. R. Doc. No.
`
`91–363, p. 3 (1970); see also Menominee Tribe of Wis. v.
`United States, 577 U. S. 250, 252 (2016) (“Congress enacted
`[ISDA] in 1975 to help Indian tribes assume responsibility
`for aid programs that benefit their members”).
`
`ISDA decentralized the provision of federal Indian bene-
`
`fits away from the Federal Government and toward Native
`American and Alaska Native organizations. ISDA allows
`any “Indian tribe” to request that the Secretary of the Inte-
`
`rior enter into a self-determination contract with a desig-
`nated “tribal organization.” §5321(a)(1). Under such a con-
`
`tract, the tribal organization delivers federally funded
`economic, infrastructure, health, or education benefits to
`the tribe’s membership.
`
`As originally drafted, ISDA’s “Indian tribe” definition did
`not mention ANCs. H. R. 6372, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., §1(a)
`
`
`
`

`

`5
`
`
`Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`(1973) (defining “Indian tribe” to mean “an Indian tribe,
`
`band, nation, or Alaska Native Community for which the
`Federal Government provides special programs and ser-
`vices because of its Indian identity”). Prior to passage, how-
`ever, the definition was amended twice to include, first,
`Alaska Native villages and, second, ANCs. See H. R. Rep.
`
`No. 93–1600, p. 14 (1974) (“The Subcommittee amended the
`definition of ‘Indian tribe’ to include regional and village
`corporations established by [ANCSA]”). Today, ISDA de-
`fines an “Indian tribe” as “any Indian tribe, band, nation,
`or other organized group or community, including any
`
`Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as
`
`defined in or established pursuant to [ANCSA], which is
`
`recognized as eligible for the special programs and services
`provided by the United States to Indians because of their
`
`status as Indians.” §5304(e).2
`
`Despite the express inclusion of ANCs in the definition of
`
`“Indian tribe,” a question arose in the Interior Department
`whether the “recognized-as-eligible clause” limits the defi-
`nition to “federally recognized tribes” only. A federally rec-
`ognized tribe is one that has entered into “a government-to-
`
`government relationship [with] the United States.” 1 F.
`Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law §3.02[3] (N. New-
`
`ton ed. 2012). This recognition can come in a number of
`ways: “from treaty, statute, executive or administrative or-
`
`der, or from a course of dealing with the tribe as a political
`entity.” W. Canby, American Indian Law in a Nutshell 4
`(7th ed. 2020). As private companies incorporated under
`
`state law, ANCs have never been “recognized” by the
`
`United States in this sovereign political sense.
`
`In 1976, the year after ISDA’s enactment, the Interior
`Department’s Assistant Solicitor for Indian Affairs issued a
`——————
`2In 1990, Congress made “technical corrections” to ISDA. S. Rep. No.
`
` 101–226, p. 10 (1989). Relevant here, Congress inserted a comma after
`the “Indian tribe” definition’s reference to ANCSA, bringing the defini-
`
` tion to what it is today. Act of May 24, 1990, §2(a)(1), 104 Stat. 206.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`6
`
`
`
`
` YELLEN v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF CHEHALIS
`RESERVATION
`Opinion of the Court
`memorandum on the status of ANCs under ISDA. App. 44–
`48. In the Assistant Solicitor’s view, the express inclusion
`
`of ANCs within the definition of “Indian tribe” confirmed
`
`that ANCs are Indian tribes under ISDA, even though they
`are not federally recognized tribes. In the decades since,
`the Interior Department has repeatedly reaffirmed that po-
`sition. See, e.g., 60 Fed. Reg. 9250 (1995) (ANCs “ha[ve]
`been designated as ‘tribes’ for the purposes of some Federal
`
`laws,” including ISDA); 58 Fed. Reg. 54364 (1993) (ANCs
`“are not governments, but they have been designated as
`
`‘tribes’ for the purposes of ” ISDA); 53 Fed. Reg. 52833
`
`
`(1988) (ISDA “specifically include[s]” ANCs).
`C
`
`In 2020, Congress incorporated ISDA’s “Indian tribe” def-
`inition into the CARES Act. 42 U. S. C. §801(g)(1). Title V
`
`of the Act allocates $150 billion to “States, Tribal govern-
`ments, and units of local government” to compensate for un-
`
`budgeted expenditures made in response to COVID–19.
`§801(a)(1). Of that $150 billion, $8 billion is reserved for
`“Tribal governments.” §801(a)(2)(B). A “Tribal govern-
`ment” is the “recognized governing body of an Indian Tribe,”
`as ISDA defines the latter term. §§801(g)(5), (1).
`
`On April 23, 2020, the Treasury Department determined
`
`that ANCs are eligible for CARES Act relief, and set aside
`more than $500 million for them (since reduced to approxi-
`mately $450 million). App. 53–54; Letter from E. Prelogar,
`
`Acting Solicitor General, to S. Harris, Clerk of Court (May
`12, 2021). Soon after the Treasury Department’s announce-
`
`ment, a number of federally recognized tribes (respondents)
`sued, arguing that only federally recognized tribes are In-
`
`dian tribes under ISDA, and thus under the CARES Act.
`Some Tribes further argued that ANCs do not have a “rec-
`
`ognized governing body” for purposes of the CARES Act and
`
`are ineligible to receive its funding for that reason as well.
`
`
`The suits were consolidated in the District Court for the
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`7
`
`
`Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`District of Columbia, which ultimately entered summary
`
`judgment for the Treasury Department and the ANCs. The
`Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit re-
`
`versed. Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation v.
`
`Mnuchin, 976 F. 3d 15 (2020). In its view, the recognized-
`as-eligible clause is a term of art requiring any Indian tribe
`
`to be a federally recognized tribe. Because no ANC is fed-
`erally recognized, the court reasoned, no ANC qualifies for
`funding under Title V of the CARES Act. In so holding, the
`D. C. Circuit split with the Ninth Circuit, which had held
`decades prior in Cook Inlet Native Assn. v. Bowen, 810 F. 2d
`1471 (1987), that ANCs are Indian tribes for ISDA pur-
`poses, regardless of whether they have been federally rec-
`ognized. Id., at 1474.
`
`We granted certiorari, 592 U. S. ___ (2021), to resolve the
`Circuit split and determine whether ANCs are eligible for
`the CARES Act funding set aside by the Treasury Depart-
`ment.
`
`
`II
`
`
`All but one of the respondent Tribes agree that ANCs are
`eligible to receive the CARES Act funds in question if they
`are Indian tribes for purposes of ISDA.3 The primary ques-
`tion for the Court, then, is whether ANCs satisfy ISDA’s
`definition of “Indian tribe.” The ANCs ask the Court to an-
`swer that question by looking to the definition’s plain mean-
`ing. Respondents ask the Court to adopt a term-of-art con-
`struction that equates being “recognized as eligible for the
`special programs and services provided by the United
`
`States to Indians” with being a “federally recognized tribe,”
`i.e., a tribe recognized by the United States in a sovereign
`
`
`political sense.
`
`——————
` 3The Court addresses the arguments of that one Tribe in Part III, in-
`fra.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`8
`
`
`YELLEN v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF CHEHALIS
`RESERVATION
`Opinion of the Court
`A
`
`Starting with the plain meaning, an “Indian tribe” under
`ISDA is a “tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or
`community, including any Alaska Native village or regional
`or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant
`to [ANCSA], which is recognized as eligible for the special
`programs and services provided by the United States to In-
`dians because of their status as Indians.” 25 U. S. C.
`§5304(e). The definition’s first two clauses are straightfor-
`
`ward enough. The first lists entities that might count as
`
`Indian tribes under the Act (e.g., tribes, bands, nations).
`
`The second, “the Alaska clause,” makes clear that Alaska
`Native villages and ANCs are “includ[ed].” The third, “the
`recognized-as-eligible clause,” requires more analysis. Ac-
`cording to that clause, the listed entities must be “recog-
`nized as eligible for the special programs and services pro-
`vided by the United States to Indians because of their
`status as Indians.”
`
`ANCs, of course, are “established pursuant to” ANCSA
`
`within the meaning of the Alaska clause. They are thereby
`
`“recognized as eligible” for ANCSA’s benefits. The trickier
`question is whether eligibility for the benefits of ANCSA
`
`counts as eligibility for “the special programs and services
`provided by the United States to Indians because of their
`status as Indians.”
`
`
`It does. Contrary to the dissent’s view, post, at 9–10
`(opinion of GORSUCH, J.), ANCSA is readily described as a
`special program provided by the United States to “Indians”
`(in this case, Alaska Natives). See 43 U. S. C. §1626 (de-
`scribing ANCSA’s relationship to “other programs”). The
`
`scope of that program is substantial: ANCSA made ANCs
`eligible to select tens of millions of acres of land and receive
`
`
`hundreds of millions of tax-exempt dollars. §§1605, 1610,
`1611. Not just a one-time payment, ANCSA provides for
`revenue sharing among the regional ANCs to ensure Alaska
`
`Natives across the State benefit from an ongoing equitable
`
`
`
`
`

`

`9
`
`
`
`
`
` Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`distribution of ANC profits. §1606(i). ANCSA further en-
`trusts ANCs to “hold, invest, manage and/or distribute
`lands, property, funds, and other rights and assets for and
`on behalf ” of Alaska Natives, who are the ANCs’ sharehold-
`
`
`ers, as well as to distribute dividends to them. See
`
`§§1602(j), 1606(j). Moreover, ANCs and their shareholders
`are “eligible for the benefits of ” ANCSA, §1606(d), precisely
`
`
`because of their status as Indians. See §1626(e)(1) (“For all
`purposes of Federal law, a Native Corporation shall be con-
`sidered to be a corporation owned and controlled by Na-
`tives”); note following §1601, p. 1136 (ANCSA is “‘Indian
`legislation enacted by Congress pursuant to its plenary au-
`thority under the Constitution of the United States to reg-
`
`ulate Indian affairs’”).
`
`
`Respondents do not deny that the benefits of ANCSA are
`“a” special program or service provided by the United States
`to Indians. According to respondents, however, such bene-
`fits are not “the” special programs and services provided to
`Indians (e.g., healthcare, education, and other social ser-
`vices provided by federal agencies like the Bureau of Indian
`Affairs and the Indian Health Service). “The” special pro-
`grams and services, respondents assert, are available only
`to federally recognized tribes (or, more precisely, to mem-
`
`bers of such tribes). In respondents’ view, ANCs are thus
`“includ[ed]” in the “Indian tribe” definition’s Alaska clause
`
`only to be excluded en masse from that definition by the
`
`
`recognized-as-eligible clause.
`
`That would certainly be an odd result. Fortunately, the
`text does not produce it. ISDA’s “Indian tribe” definition
`
`does not specify the particular programs and services an
`
`
`entity must be eligible for to satisfy the recognized-as-
`eligible clause. Given that ANCSA is the only statute the
`
`“Indian tribe” definition mentions by name, the best read-
`ing of the definition is that being eligible for ANCSA’s ben-
`
`efits by itself satisfies the recognized-as-eligible clause.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`10
`
`
`YELLEN v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF CHEHALIS
`RESERVATION
`Opinion of the Court
`Consider a similarly worded example. A doctor recom-
`
`mends getting a blood test every six months to “any child,
`adult, or senior, including anyone over the age of 75 whose
`blood-sugar levels have tested in the prediabetic range
`
`within the last five years, who exhibits the warning signs
`of Type 2 diabetes.” Without further context, it is unclear
`
`exactly which warning signs the doctor is referring to, or
`
`how many of those signs a child, adult, or senior must ex-
`hibit before warranting biannual testing. But it is fair to
`
`say that individuals over 75 with prediabetic blood-sugar
`levels within the last five years should get tested biannu-
`ally, even if they exhibit no other warning signs. By ex-
`pressly “including” individuals with that one warning sign,
`the doctor’s recommendation makes clear that particular
`
`sign, by itself, is warning enough.
`Just so here: Congress’ express inclusion of ANCs “estab-
`
`lished pursuant to [ANCSA]” confirms that eligibility for
`ANCSA’s benefits alone is eligibility enough to be an Indian
`tribe. ANCs thus satisfy ISDA’s Indian tribe definition, re-
`gardless of whether they and their shareholders are eligible
`
`for federal Indian programs and services other than those
`provided in ANCSA. At any rate, the one-to-one relation-
`ship respondents posit between membership in a federally
`recognized tribe and eligibility for federal Indian benefits
`
`more broadly does not hold in the unique circumstances of
`Alaska. See Letter from E. Prelogar, Acting Solicitor Gen-
`eral, to S. Harris, Clerk of Court (Apr. 22, 2021) (“[T]he fed-
`eral government has historically provided benefits and ser-
`
`vices to Alaska Natives who are not enrolled members of a
`
`federally recognized Indian tribe”); D. Case & D. Voluck,
`Alaska Natives and Americans Laws 30 (3d ed. 2012)
`(“[T]he federal government has, at least since the end of the
`nineteenth century, provided a wide variety of programs
`
`and services to Alaska Natives solely because of their status
`
` as Natives”). So ANCSA is not, in fact, the only federal In-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`dian program or service for which ANCs and their share-
`
`holders are eligible.
`
`
`It should come as no surprise that Congress made ANCs
`
`eligible to contract under ISDA. After all, Congress itself
`
`created ANCs just four years earlier to receive the benefits
`of the Alaska land settlement on behalf of all Alaska Na-
`tives. Allowing ANCs to distribute federal Indian benefits
`more broadly is entirely consistent with the approach Con-
`gress charted in ANCSA. Accord, 1 American Indian Policy
`Review Comm’n, Final Report, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., 495
`(Comm. Print 1977) (ANCs “might well be the form or or-
`
`ganization best suited to sponsor certain kinds of federally
`funded programs” in Alaska); 43 U. S. C. §1606(r) (“The au-
`thority of a Native Corporation to provide benefits . . . to
`promote the health, education, or welfare of . . . sharehold-
`ers or family members is expressly authorized and con-
`firmed”).
`
`Under the plain meaning of ISDA, ANCs are Indian
`tribes, regardless of whether they are also federally recog-
`nized tribes. In so holding, the Court does not open the door
`to other Indian groups that have not been federally recog-
`
`nized becoming Indian tribes under ISDA. Even if such
`groups qualify for certain federal benefits, that does not
`make them similarly situated to ANCs. ANCs are sui gen-
`eris entities created by federal statute and granted an enor-
`mous amount of special federal benefits as part of a legisla-
`tive experiment tailored to the unique circumstances of
`Alaska and recreated nowhere else. Moreover, with the ex-
`ception of Alaska Native villages (which are now federally
`
`recognized), no entities other than ANCs are expressly “in-
`
`clud[ed]” by name in ISDA’s “Indian tribe” definition. Cf.
`Sturgeon, 577 U. S., at 440 (“All those Alaska-specific pro-
`visions reflect the simple truth that Alaska is often the ex-
`ception, not the rule”).
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` YELLEN v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF CHEHALIS
`RESERVATION
`Opinion of the Court
`B
`
`Respondents urge this Court to discard the plain mean-
`
`ing of the “Indian tribe” definition in favor of a term-of-art
`construction. In respondents’ view, the 69 words of the “In-
`dian tribe” definition are a long way of saying just 8: An
`“Indian tribe” means a “federally recognized tribe.” If that
`
`is right, respondents are correct that ANCs are not Indian
`tribes, because everyone agrees they are not federally rec-
`
`ognized tribes. To prevail on this argument, however, re-
`
`spondents must demonstrate that the statutory context
`
`supports reading ISDA’s “Indian tribe” definition as a term
`of art rather than according to its plain meaning. See John-
`
`son v. United States, 559 U. S. 133, 139 (2010). Their efforts
`are not persuasive.
`
`In arguing for a term-of-art construction, respondents
`first rely on a series of Acts that terminated various tribes
`starting in the late 1950s. Those Acts closed tribal mem-
`bership rolls, specified the division of tribal assets, and re-
`voked tribal constitutions. See, e.g., Act of Sept. 21, 1959,
`
`Pub. L. No. 86–322, 73 Stat. 592. Following termination,
`
`the tribe and its members were no longer “entitled to any of
`the special services performed by the United States for In-
`
`dians because of their status as Indians.” §5, id., at 593. As
`
`respondents note, this language resembles (although does
`not mirror precisely) the final words of ISDA’s recognized-
`as-eligible clause. If being terminated means no longer be-
`ing “entitled to any of the special services performed by the
`United States for Indians because of their status as Indi-
`ans,” the argument goes, then being “recognized as eligible
`
`for the special programs and services provided by the
`United States to Indians because of their status as Indians”
`means being a federally recognized tribe.
`
`Respondents misjudge the relevance of these termination
`statutes. Those statutes do not contain the words “recog-
`nized as eligible”; they do not even contain the word “recog-
`
`nized.” Furthermore, the termination statutes use their
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`13
`
`
`Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`ISDA-reminiscent phrasing not as a synonym for termina-
`
`tion but to describe just one, among other, consequences of
`
`a tribe’s constitution being revoked. See, e.g., ibid. (“The
`constitution of the tribe . . . shall be revoked by the Secre-
`tary. Thereafter, the tribe and its members shall not be
`entitled to any of the special services performed by the
`United States for Indians because of their status as Indi-
`ans, all statutes of the United States that affect Indians be-
`
`cause of their status as Indians shall be inapplicable to
`them, and the laws of the several States shall apply to them
`
`in the same manner they apply to other persons or citizens
`within their jurisdiction”).
`
`Some linguistic similarity between ISDA and the termi-
`
`nation statutes does not suggest that the language of the
`recognized-as-eligible clause was an accepted way of saying
`“a federally recognized tribe”

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket