Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-543_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 40

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

9 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

(at 

least 

reading comes perilously close to rendering the term “rec-
ognized” surplusage:  If ISDA really does capture any group 
merely “eligible” for federal benefits, why not just say that 
and  avoid  introducing  a  term  with  a  particular  and  well-
established meaning in federal Indian law? 
  Third,  even  putting  aside  the  recognition  requirement, 
ISDA  says  tribes  must  receive  services  from  the  United 
States “because of their status as Indians.”  §5304(e).  The 
Court says that ANSCA made ANCs eligible for settlement 
funds  and  lands  because  its  shareholders  are  Alaska  Na-
tives.  Ante, at 8.  But is compensation provided to profit-
maximizing corporations whose shareholders happen to be 
Alaska  Natives 
initially,  see  43  U. S. C. 
§§1606(h)(1),  1629c)  a  benefit  provided  to  Indians?    And 
were ANSCA settlement funds provided to ANCs and their 
shareholders  because  of  their  Indian  status  or  simply  be-
cause Congress wanted to resolve a land dispute regardless 
of  the  claimants’  status?    See  §1601(b)  (“[T]he  settlement 
should  be  accomplished  . . .  without  establishing  any  per-
manent  racially  defined  institutions,  rights,  privileges,  or 
obligations . . . ”); but see §1626(e)(1) (“For all purposes of 
Federal law, a Native Corporation shall be considered to be 
a  corporation  owned  and  controlled  by  Natives  . . .  ”).  
Again, the answers remain unclear.  Ante, at 8–9. 
  Finally, ISDA provides that tribes must be recognized as 
eligible for “the special programs and services provided by 
the United States.”  25 U. S. C. §5304(e) (emphasis added).  
It is a small word to be sure, but “the” suggests the statute 
refers to a particular slate of programs and services—here 
the full panoply of federal Indian benefits—not just any spe-
cial  programs  and  services  the  government  might  supply.  
See Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 
14) (“[G]rammar and usage establish that ‘the’ is ‘a function 
word . . . indicat[ing] that a following noun or noun equiva-
lent is definite or has been previously specified by context’ ” 
(quoting  Merriam-Webster’s  Collegiate  Dictionary  1294