Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-543_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 3

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

3 

Syllabus 

treating ANCs as Indian tribes would complicate the administration 
of ISDA.  But respondents point to no evidence of such administrative 
burdens  in  the  45  years  the  Executive  Branch  has  treated  ANCs  as 
Indian tribes.  Respondents also warn that blessing ANCs’ status un-
der  ISDA  will  give  ANCs  ammunition  to  press  for  participation  in 
other statutes that incorporate ISDA’s “Indian tribe” definition.  This 
concern cuts both ways, as adopting respondents’ position would pre-
sumably  exclude  ANCs  from  the  many  other  statutes  incorporating 
ISDA’s definition, even those under which ANCs have long benefited.
Pp. 23–25. 

(b) One  respondent  tribe  further  argues  that  the  CARES  Act  ex-
cludes ANCs regardless of whether they are Indian tribes under ISDA, 
because ANCs do not have a “recognized governing body.”  In the ISDA 
context,  the  term  “recognized  governing  body”  has  long  been  under-
stood to apply to an ANC’s board of directors, and nothing in either the
CARES Act or ISDA suggests that the term places additional limits on 
the kinds of Indian tribes eligible to benefit under the statutes.  Pp.
26–27. 

976 F. 3d 15, reversed and remanded. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, 
C. J., and BREYER, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined, and in which 
ALITO, J., joined as to Parts I, II–C, II–D, III, and IV.  GORSUCH, J., filed 
a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and KAGAN, JJ., joined.