Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-543_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 5

2 

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

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[,] 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).

The Department of the Treasury asked the Department 
of the Interior, the agency that administers ISDA, whether 
Alaska  Native  Corporations  (ANCs)  meet  that  definition. 
Consistent with its longstanding view, the Interior Depart-
ment  said  yes.    The  Treasury  Department  then  set  aside 
approximately $500 million of CARES Act funding for the 
ANCs.  The question presented is whether ANCs are “In-
dian tribe[s]” under ISDA, and are therefore eligible to re-
ceive the CARES Act relief set aside by the Treasury De-
partment.  The Court holds that they are. 

I 
This  is  not  the  first  time  the  Court  has  addressed  the 
unique circumstances of Alaska and its indigenous popula-
tion.  See, e.g., Sturgeon v. Frost, 587 U. S. ___ (2019); Stur-
geon v. Frost, 577 U. S. 424 (2016); Alaska v. Native Village 
of  Venetie  Tribal  Government,  522  U. S.  520  (1998); 
Metlakatla Indian Community v. Egan, 369 U. S. 45 (1962). 
The  “simple  truth”  reflected  in  those  prior  cases  is  that 
“Alaska is often the exception, not the rule.”  Sturgeon, 577 
U. S.,  at  440.    To  see why,  one  must  first  understand  the
United  States’  unique  historical  relationship  with  Alaska 
Natives. 

A 

When  the  United  States  purchased  the  Territory  of 
Alaska from Russia in 1867, Alaska Natives lived in com-
munities  dispersed  widely  across  Alaska’s  365  million 
acres.  In the decades that followed, “[t]here was never an