Alaska Native Village Corporation Association v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 8 Jan 2021

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) defines “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 the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688), 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 Congress’ express inclusion of “Alaska Native ... regional [and] village corporation[s]” (ANCs) in the text, the Executive has long treated ANCs as “Indian tribes” under ISDEAA and the dozens of statutes that incorporate its definition. The Ninth Circuit, home to all ANCs, likewise has long held that ANCs are “Indian tribes” under ISDEAA. Thus, for decades ANCs have played a critical role in distributing federal benefits to Alaska Natives. Accordingly, when Congress earmarked $8 billion in Title V of the CARES Act for Indian tribes and incorporated the ISDEAA definition, the Treasury Secretary quite naturally obligated part of those funds to ANCs. Yet in acknowledged conflict with the Ninth Circuit and long-settled agency practice, the decision below holds that ANCs do not satisfy the ISDEAA definition that the CARES Act incorporates. The question presented is: Whether ANCs are “Indian tribes” under ISDEAA and therefore are eligible for emergency-relief funds under Title V of the CARES Act.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case addressed whether Alaska Native corporations (ANCs) qualify as 'Indian tribes' under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. The CARES Act allocated funds to tribal governments for pandemic relief, defining eligible entities using language from the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA). ANCs argued they were included in this definition due to their recognition by federal law as similar entities. However, several federally recognized tribes contended that ANCs did not meet the criteria because they are state-chartered corporations without government-to-government relationships with the United States. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of ANCs, holding that they do qualify as 'Indian tribes' under ISDA's definition incorporated into the CARES Act. This decision allowed them access to a share of $8 billion designated for tribal governments.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion arguing that Congress intended only federally recognized tribes with direct governmental authority over lands or people should receive funding under the CARES Act provisions meant for ‘tribal governments.’ She emphasized that including ANCs dilutes resources meant specifically for those exercising sovereign powers akin to traditional governance structures acknowledged by treaties or statutes. Her dissent highlighted concerns about misallocation impacting genuine self-governing bodies needing support during crises.