594 U.S. 338
SCOTUS2021Background
- The CARES Act (Title V) set aside $8 billion for "Tribal governments," defining that term as the "recognized governing body of an Indian tribe" and cross‑referencing ISDA's definition of "Indian tribe."
- ISDA (1975) defines "Indian tribe" to include "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."
- ANCs (regional and village Alaska Native Corporations) were created by ANCSA (1971) as state‑chartered, for‑profit corporations that received land and financial benefits to settle Alaska Native land claims; they are not federally recognized tribes in the government‑to‑government sense.
- The Interior Department historically treated ANCs as "Indian tribes" for ISDA purposes; Treasury followed that view and set aside roughly $500 million for ANCs under the CARES Act, prompting suits by several federally recognized tribes.
- The D.C. District Court granted summary judgment for Treasury/ANCs; the D.C. Circuit reversed holding that the ISDA "recognized‑as‑eligible" clause is a term of art requiring federal political recognition. The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit: ANCs qualify as "Indian tribes" under ISDA and their boards qualify as "recognized governing bodies" under the CARES Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chehalis/Ute, etc.) | Defendant's Argument (Treasury/ANCs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ANCs are "Indian tribes" under ISDA | ANCs are not tribes; ISDA requires entities to be federally recognized to qualify | ISDA expressly includes ANCs via the ANCSA clause; plain meaning makes ANCs "Indian tribes" | ANCs are "Indian tribes" under ISDA; plain reading and ANCSA inclusion control |
| Whether the ISDA "recognized‑as‑eligible" clause is a term‑of‑art meaning "federally recognized" | The phrase is a term of art denoting formal federal political recognition | "Recognized" does not necessarily denote political recognition; eligibility for ANCSA suffices | Rejected term‑of‑art reading; respondents failed to show that meaning existed in 1975 or should be backdated |
| If the recognition clause required federal recognition, whether it nonetheless applies to ANCs included in the Alaska clause | The recognition clause modifies all listed entities (including ANCs) | If applied to ANCs it would be implausible; better reading exempts the Alaska clause | Court: if the clause were read to require federal recognition, the best reading is that it does not operate to exclude ANCs included by name in the Alaska clause |
| Whether ANCs have a "recognized governing body" eligible to receive CARES funds | ANC boards are not "recognized governing bodies" in the government‑to‑government sense | In ISDA practice an ANC's board of directors functions as the "recognized governing body" for contracting/funding purposes | ANC boards qualify as "recognized governing bodies" under ISDA/CARES and may receive Title V funds |
Key Cases Cited
- Sturgeon v. Frost, 577 U.S. 424 (2016) (Alaska‑specific statutory treatment and geographic exceptions)
- Metlakatla Indian Community v. Egan, 369 U.S. 45 (1962) (historical treatment of Alaska Native communities)
- Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) (ANCSA’s settlement structure and effects)
- Menominee Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 577 U.S. 250 (2016) (ISDA’s purpose to enable tribal self‑determination)
- Cook Inlet Native Ass'n v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1471 (9th Cir. 1987) (Ninth Circuit precedent recognizing ANCs under ISDA)
- Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation v. Mnuchin, 976 F.3d 15 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (appellate decision below holding ANCs not covered)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (term‑of‑art statutory interpretation principles)
- Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335 (2005) (series‑qualifier canon and modifying clauses)
- United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 (1906) (syllabus disclaimers; textual note on syllabi)