Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-543_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

dian  program  or  service  for  which  ANCs  and  their  share-
holders are eligible.

It should come as no surprise that Congress made ANCs
eligible to contract under ISDA.  After all, Congress itself
created ANCs just four years earlier to receive the benefits
of the Alaska land settlement on behalf of all Alaska Na-
tives.  Allowing ANCs to distribute federal Indian benefits
more broadly is entirely consistent with the approach Con-
gress charted in ANCSA.  Accord, 1 American Indian Policy 
Review  Comm’n,  Final  Report,  95th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  495 
(Comm. Print 1977) (ANCs “might well be the form or or-
ganization best suited to sponsor certain kinds of federally
funded programs” in Alaska); 43 U. S. C. §1606(r) (“The au-
thority  of  a  Native  Corporation  to  provide  benefits  . . .  to 
promote the health, education, or welfare of . . . sharehold-
ers  or  family  members  is  expressly  authorized  and  con-
firmed”).

Under  the  plain  meaning  of  ISDA,  ANCs  are  Indian 
tribes, regardless of whether they are also federally recog-
nized tribes.  In so holding, the Court does not open the door
to other Indian groups that have not been federally recog-
nized  becoming  Indian  tribes  under  ISDA.    Even  if  such 
groups  qualify  for  certain  federal  benefits,  that  does  not 
make them similarly situated to ANCs.  ANCs are sui gen-
eris entities created by federal statute and granted an enor-
mous amount of special federal benefits as part of a legisla-
tive  experiment  tailored  to  the  unique  circumstances  of
Alaska and recreated nowhere else.  Moreover, with the ex-
ception of Alaska Native villages (which are now federally 
recognized), no entities other than ANCs are expressly “in-
clud[ed]” by name in ISDA’s “Indian tribe” definition.  Cf. 
Sturgeon, 577 U. S., at 440 (“All those Alaska-specific pro-
visions reflect the simple truth that Alaska is often the ex-
ception, not the rule”).