Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation
Headline: Alaska Native Corporations are treated as Indian tribes under ISDA, so the Treasury may award CARES Act tribal relief to ANCs, making them eligible for hundreds of millions in funding.
Holding:
- Makes ANCs eligible for Title V CARES Act tribal relief.
- Allows ANC corporate boards to receive and administer allocated funds.
- Could change eligibility under other federal programs using ISDA’s definition.
Summary
Background
In 2020 Congress set aside $8 billion in CARES Act Title V funding for "Tribal governments." The Treasury relied on ISDA’s definition of "Indian tribe," which expressly mentions Alaska Native village and regional or village corporations established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The Department of the Interior long treated Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) as tribes eligible under ISDA. Federally recognized tribes sued after Treasury set aside roughly $500 million for ANCs; the D.C. Circuit ruled against the Treasury.
Reasoning
The Court’s central question was whether ANCs are "Indian tribes" under ISDA. The majority held they are. It read ISDA’s Alaska clause and the statute’s final "recognized-as-eligible" clause together and concluded that eligibility for ANCSA’s benefits qualifies as being "recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians." The Court rejected treating the recognized phrase as a term of art meaning only federally recognized tribes. It also held that an ANC’s board of directors can serve as the "recognized governing body" for CARES Act purposes.
Real world impact
Because ANCs qualify under ISDA, they are eligible for Title V CARES Act funds that Treasury allocated to them (about $450–500 million). The ruling gives effect to the Executive Branch’s long-standing practice of treating ANCs as tribes under some federal statutes and may affect how agencies apply ISDA-based definitions in other programs that incorporate ISDA’s "Indian tribe" definition. The Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and remanded for further proceedings.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion; Chief Justice Roberts and several Justices joined parts. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Thomas and Kagan, arguing the statutory language requires formal federal government-to-government recognition, which ANCs lack.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?