Discover this podcast and so much more

Podcasts are free to enjoy without a subscription. We also offer ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more for just $11.99/month.

[20-543] Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation

[20-543] Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation

FromSupreme Court Oral Arguments


[20-543] Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation

FromSupreme Court Oral Arguments

ratings:
Length:
104 minutes
Released:
Apr 19, 2021
Format:
Podcast episode

Description

Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation
Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org
Argued on Apr 19, 2021.Decided on Jun 25, 2021.
Petitioner: Janet L. Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury.Respondent: Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, et al..
Advocates: Matthew Guarnieri (for the Petitioner)
Paul D. Clement (for the Petitioners)
Jeffrey S. Rasmussen (for the Respondents)
Facts of the case (from oyez.org)
For over a century after the Alaska Purchase in 1867, the federal government had no settled policy on recognition of Alaska Native groups as Indian tribes. In 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), which authorized the creation of two types of corporations to receive money and land: Alaska Native Regional Corporations and Alaska Native Village Corporations (collectively ANCs).
In 1975, Congress enacted the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA) to “help Indian tribes assume responsibility for aid programs that benefit their members.” ISDA defines an “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.”
In 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), Title V of which makes certain funds available to the recognized governing bodies of any "Indian Tribe" as that term is defined in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA). The Department of the Treasury concluded that ANCs were eligible to receive Title V funds.
Six federally recognized tribes in Alaska and twelve federally recognized tribes in the lower 48 states challenged that determination, arguing that ANCs are not “Indian Tribes” within the meaning of the CARES Act or ISDA. Although the government conceded that ANCs have not been historically recognized as eligible for special programs and services because of their status as Indians, it nevertheless argued that Congress expressly included ANCs within the ISDA definition.
The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that ANCs must qualify as Indian tribes to give effect to their express inclusion in the ISDA definition, even though no ANC has been recognized as an Indian tribe. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed, holding that ANCs are not eligible for funding under Title V of the CARES Act because they are not “recognized” as Indian tribes.

Question
Are Alaska Native regional and village corporations established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act “Indian Tribes” for purposes of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act?

Conclusion
Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) are “Indian tribe[s]” under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA) and thus eligible for funding available to “Tribal governments” under Title V of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.
The majority determined that under the plain meaning of the ISDA, ANCs are Indian tribes. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) is the only statute the ISDA’s “Indian tribe” definition mentions by name, so eligibility for ANCSA’s benefits satisfies the definition’s final “recognized-as-eligible” clause. The respondents failed to demonstrate that the phrase “Indian tribe” is a term of art that should exclude ANCs, and none of their other arguments for reading “Indian tribes” as exclusive of ANCs were persuasive. 
Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan. Justice Gorsuch argued that the plain langu
Released:
Apr 19, 2021
Format:
Podcast episode

Titles in the series (100)

A podcast feed of the audio recordings of the oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court. * Podcast adds new arguments automatically and immediately after they become available on supremecourt.gov * Detailed episode descriptions with facts about the case from oyez.org and links to docket and other information. * Convenient chapters to skip to any exchange between a justice and an advocate (available as soon as oyez.org publishes the transcript). Also available in video form at https://www.youtube.com/@SCOTUSOralArgument