Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin
599 U.S. 382
SCOTUS2023Background
- Lac du Flambeau Band (a federally recognized tribe) wholly owns Lendgreen, which made a payday loan to Brian Coughlin.
- Coughlin filed Chapter 13; the filing triggered the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. §362, but Lendgreen allegedly continued collection efforts.
- Coughlin moved in Bankruptcy Court to enforce the stay and recover damages under §362(k); the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the suit on tribal sovereign-immunity grounds.
- The First Circuit reversed, holding the Bankruptcy Code unambiguously abrogates tribal sovereign immunity; courts of appeals were split on the question.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §106(a) read with §101(27)) unambiguously abrogates sovereign immunity of tribes because tribes fit the Code’s broad definition of "governmental unit."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Bankruptcy Code abrogates tribal sovereign immunity | §106(a) + §101(27) abrogate immunity of any governmental unit, including tribes | Congress did not unmistakably and expressly abrogate tribal immunity | Yes. §106(a) + §101(27) unambiguously abrogate tribal sovereign immunity |
| Meaning of the catchall phrase "other foreign or domestic government" in §101(27) | The pairing "foreign or domestic" is inclusive and intended to cover all governments | The phrase could be read to exclude sui generis entities (tribes) that are neither purely foreign nor purely domestic | Court: the pairing is broad and all-inclusive; §102(5) ("or" not exclusive) supports inclusive reading |
| Whether tribes qualify as "governmental unit[s]" under the Code | Federally recognized tribes are governments exercising governmental functions and thus fit §101(27) | Tribes occupy a unique/hybrid legal status and are not plainly "domestic" governments | Court: tribes indisputably count as governments; therefore §106(a) applies to them |
Key Cases Cited
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (recognizing tribal sovereign immunity)
- FAA v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (clear-statement rule; ambiguity preserves immunity)
- Central Va. Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (Bankruptcy Code can abrogate sovereign immunity)
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (tribal immunity baseline; clear-statement requirement)
- Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Techs., 523 U.S. 751 (tribal immunity doctrine)
- C & L Enters., Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe, 532 U.S. 411 (statutory abrogation standards)
- United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30 (interpreting Bankruptcy Code and abrogation questions)