Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-543_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 28

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

25 

Opinion of the Court 

under”  ISDA  and  requiring  authorizing  resolutions  from
“[v]illages, as the smallest tribal units under” ANCSA). 

Respondents also warn that blessing ANCs’ status under 
ISDA will give them ammunition to press for participation
in the many statutes besides the CARES Act that incorpo-
rate  ISDA’s  “Indian  tribe”  definition.    See,  e.g.,  Indian 
Health Care Improvement Act, §4(d), 90 Stat. 1401; Native 
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act 
of 1996, §4(12)(B), 110 Stat. 4019–4020; Indian Tribal En-
ergy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2005, [Ti-
tle V of the Energy Policy Act of 2005], §503(a), 119 Stat. 
764–765. 

As  the  Government  notes,  however,  there  may  well  be
statutes  that  incorporate  ISDA’s  “Indian  tribe”  definition 
but  exclude  ANCs  from  participation  in  other  ways.    See 
Brief  for  Federal  Petitioner  33–34  (citing,  e.g.,  7  U. S. C. 
§§1639o(2), 1639p(a)(1) (defining “Indian tribe” to incorpo-
rate the ISDA definition, but also requiring participants to 
exercise “ ‘regulatory authority over . . . territory of the In-
dian  tribe’ ”)).    Moreover,  this  concern  cuts  both  ways.  If 
respondents’ reading prevailed, ANCs would presumably be 
excluded from all other statutes incorporating ISDA’s defi-
nition, even those under which ANCs have long benefited.
That includes the Indian Tribal Energy Development and 
Self-Determination Act of 2005, under which ANCs have re-
ceived millions of dollars of energy assistance.  See Brief for 
Federal  Petitioner  33.    That  also  includes  NAHASDA, 
which, as discussed, creates a housing block grant program
under which the regional ANCs are some of the biggest re-
cipients  in  Alaska.  See  supra,  at  17–18.  Currently,  over
10,000  Alaskans  live  in  housing  units  built,  improved,  or 
managed by these regional authorities.  See Brief for Asso-
ciation of Alaska Housing Authorities as Amicus Curiae 15. 
All told, the Court’s decision today does not “vest ANCs
with  new  and  untold  tribal  powers,”  as  respondents  fear.