Yvonne Ito v. Copper River Native Association, 547 P.3d 1003

Copper River Native Association (CRNA) is an Alaska nonprofit formed and governed by federally recognized Alaska Native tribes to deliver tribal services (notably healthcare) and is an inter-tribal consortium under the ISDEAA.
Member tribes authorize CRNA to receive federal health funds and each tribe appoints a director to CRNA’s board; most of CRNA’s budget derives from compact/federal funds intended for the tribes.
Yvonne Ito, a former CRNA employee, sued for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing after termination; CRNA moved to dismiss asserting tribal sovereign immunity.
The superior court dismissed Ito’s complaint, concluding CRNA was an arm of its member tribes and therefore immune; Ito appealed, arguing Runyon controlled and precluded immunity.
The Alaska Supreme Court concluded Runyon’s dispositive financial-insulation rule was no longer sound, adopted a multi-factor arm-of-the-tribe test (guided by Breakthrough/White), held CRNA is an arm of its tribes, and affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ito)	Defendant's Argument (CRNA)	Held
Whether Runyon’s financial-insulation threshold controls	Runyon requires denying immunity because CRNA is state-incorporated and financially insulated from tribes	Runyon is outdated; later federal decisions favor a multi-factor test and immunity	Runyon’s threshold rule overruled; multi-factor test adopted
Whether CRNA is an "arm of the tribe" entitled to sovereign immunity	CRNA is a separate Alaska nonprofit; tribes wouldn’t be the real parties in interest under Runyon	CRNA performs tribal governmental functions, receives tribal-authorized federal funds, and tribes exercise governance/control	Applying multi-factor analysis, CRNA is an arm of its member tribes and entitled to immunity
Proper framework for arm-of-the-tribe analysis	(Implicit) apply Runyon or require clear waiver of immunity	Adopt multi-factor inquiry (purpose, creation, control, tribal intent, financial relationship) as in Breakthrough/White	Court adopts five-factor approach; no single factor dispositive
Whether tribe(s) waived immunity by state incorporation or under Alaska law	Incorporation and "sue and be sued" under Alaska law amount to waiver	Waiver must be clear and unequivocal; incorporation alone is insufficient	No clear waiver found; CRNA’s member tribes did not unequivocally waive immunity

Runyon ex rel. B.R. v. Ass’n of Vill. Council Presidents, 84 P.3d 437 (Alaska 2004) (prior Alaska precedent treating financial insulation as dispositive in arm-of-the-tribe analysis)
Breakthrough Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino & Resort, 629 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2010) (adopting multi-factor arm-of-the-tribe test and rejecting financial insulation as dispositive)
White v. Univ. of Cal., 765 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2014) (adopting Breakthrough factors to find arm-of-the-tribe immunity for a state-formed tribal entity)
Williams v. Big Picture Loans, LLC, 929 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2019) (applying multi-factor framework and emphasizing purposes underlying tribal immunity)
Lewis v. Clarke, 581 U.S. 155 (U.S. 2017) (distinguishing arm-of-the-tribe analysis from individual-capacity immunities and clarifying real-party-in-interest use)
Bay Mills Indian Cmty. v. State of Michigan, 572 U.S. 782 (U.S. 2014) (reiterating baseline federal common-law tribal sovereign immunity principles)
Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (U.S. 1998) (holding tribal sovereign immunity applies absent clear congressional abrogation or unequivocal waiver)