Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-543_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 27

24 

YELLEN v. CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF CHEHALIS 
RESERVATION 
Opinion of the Court 

held by ANCs, quantity is not the only issue.  For example, 
CIRI contracts through a designee to provide healthcare 
to  thousands  of  Alaska  Natives  in  Anchorage  and  the 
Matanuska-Susitna Valley.  Brief for CIRI as Amicus Cu-
riae  9.  The  loss  of  CIRI’s  ability  alone  to  contract  under
ISDA  would  have  significant  effects  on  the  many  Alaska
Natives it currently serves.9 

Respondents further argue that treating ANCs as Indian
tribes would complicate the administration of ISDA.  If an 
ISDA contract will benefit multiple Indian tribes, each such 
tribe has to agree to the contract before it can go into effect.
25 U. S. C. §5304(l).  Because membership in ANCs and fed-
erally  recognized  tribes  often  overlap,  respondents  argue 
that ANCs will be able to veto any ISDA contract sought by 
a federally recognized tribe in Alaska. 

Without  discounting  the  possibility  of  administrative
burdens, this concern is overstated.  The Executive Branch 
has treated ANCs as Indian tribes for 45 years, yet respond-
ents  point  to  no  evidence  of  such  a  problem  ever  having 
arisen.  If such a problem does arise, moreover, the Interior 
Department  may  be  able  to  craft  an  administrative  solu-
tion.  Cf. 46 Fed. Reg. 27178, 27179 (1981) (Indian Health
Service  regulations  establishing  an  “order  of  precedence” 
among  Alaskan  entities  “[f]or  the  purposes  of  contracting 

—————— 

9 Respondents  argue  that  CIRI’s  healthcare  services  would  survive  a 
ruling  in  respondents’  favor,  because  CIRI’s  ISDA  contract  is  provided 
for “by separate statute.”  Brief for Respondents Confederated Tribes of 
Chehalis Reservation et al. 52.  As discussed, after CIRI entered into an 
ISDA contract to provide healthcare benefits, a group of Alaskan tribes 
sued.  See Cook Inlet Treaty Tribes v. Shalala, 166 F. 3d 986, 988 (CA9 
1999).  Congress then passed a bill to moot the dispute.  Department of
the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, §325(a), 111
Stat.  1597–1598.    It  is  not  entirely  clear  whether  this  bill  means  that 
CIRI’s ISDA contract would survive a ruling that ANCs are not Indian 
tribes under ISDA.  But the fact that Congress intervened to ensure that 
a regional ANC could more easily contract under ISDA is, if anything,
further indication that the Court’s ruling today is the correct one.