976 F.3d 15
D.C. Cir.2020Background:
- ANCSA (1971) created Alaska Native Regional and Village Corporations (ANCs) to receive land and settlement funds instead of reservations; ANCs are state-chartered corporations with shareholders and corporate governance.
- ISDA (1975) defines “Indian tribe” to include “any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation” but adds that covered entities must be “recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.”
- Title V of the CARES Act (2020) reserved $8 billion for “Tribal governments,” defined as the “recognized governing body of an Indian Tribe,” and incorporated ISDA’s definition of “Indian Tribe.”
- Treasury solicited tribe/ANC data and concluded ANCs were eligible for CARES Title V funds; federally recognized tribes sued, seeking to block payments to ANCs. The district court entered a preliminary injunction, then later granted summary judgment to the government; the tribes obtained an injunction pending appeal.
- The D.C. Circuit reviewed whether Treasury’s decision is judicially reviewable and whether ANCs qualify as “Indian tribes” under ISDA; it held that the action is reviewable and that ANCs do not qualify because they have not been federally recognized.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Are Treasury’s CARES Act funding decisions to include ANCs judicially reviewable under the APA? | Agency action is reviewable; plaintiffs are aggrieved by the eligibility decision. | The CARES Act’s timing, urgency, and statutory scheme imply preclusion of judicial review. | Reviewable — no clear statutory preclusion; short deadlines/urgency do not bar review. |
| 2) Does ISDA’s recognition clause modify the listed categories, including ANCs, so that a corporation must be “recognized” to qualify as an "Indian tribe"? | Yes — the recognition clause adjectivally limits all listed nouns, including corporations. | No — Congress’s explicit inclusion of ANCs shows it intended corporations to qualify even without recognition. | The recognition clause modifies the entire list; corporations qualify only if recognized. |
| 3) Does “recognized as eligible for the special programs and services…because of their status as Indians” require formal federal (government‑to‑government) recognition, or merely programmatic eligibility/receipt of benefits? | "Recognized" is a legal term of art requiring formal federal recognition and the government-to-government relationship. | "Recognized" can be satisfied by eligibility for or receipt of Indian-targeted benefits via statutes or programs. | Requires formal federal recognition (government-to-government); mere program eligibility is insufficient. |
| 4) Are ANCs eligible to receive CARES Act Title V tribal funds? | ANCs are not federally recognized and thus not "Indian tribes" under ISDA; they cannot receive Title V funds. | ISDA’s inclusion of ANCs means they are eligible; Treasury’s decision to include them was lawful. | ANCs are not eligible for Title V CARES funds under ISDA; judgment for government reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162 (2011) (describing federal trust relationship and special obligations to Indian tribes)
- Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 750 (2016) (context on self-determination statutes and tribal contracts)
- Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 567 U.S. 182 (2012) (interpretation of self-determination contracting statutes)
- Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340 (1984) (framework for determining implied preclusion of judicial review)
- Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs., LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020) (strong presumption in favor of judicial review)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency enforcement discretion and nonreviewability principles)
- Air Wis. Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper, 571 U.S. 237 (2014) (treating specialized statutory terms as terms of art)
- Frank’s Landing Indian Cmty. v. Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, 918 F.3d 610 (9th Cir. 2019) ("recognition" as a legal term of art denoting government-to-government acknowledgment)