Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-543_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 42.0

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

11 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

by treaty, which may exist even if the tribe is no longer rec-
ognized.  Cf. Menominee Tribe v.  United States, 391 U. S. 
404, 412–413 (1968).  How does the Court solve this prob-
lem?  With an ipse dixit.  See ante, at 11 (“[T]he Court does 
not open the door to other Indian groups that have not been 
federally recognized becoming Indian tribes under ISDA”).  
The Court’s “plain meaning” argument thus becomes trans-
parent for what it is—a bare assertion that the recognition 
clause  carries  a  different  meaning  when  applied  to  ANCs 
than when applied to anyone else. 

III 
  With its first theory facing so many problems, the Court  
offers a backup.  Now the Court suggests that ANCs qualify 
as tribes even if they fail to satisfy the recognition clause.  
Ante, at 18.  Because ISDA’s opening list of entities specifi-
cally  includes  ANCs,  the  Court  reasons,  the  recognition 
clause must be read as inapplicable to them alone.  Essen-
tially, the Court quietly takes us full circle to the beginning 
of the case—endorsing an admittedly ungrammatical read-
ing of the statute in order to avoid what it calls the “implau-
sible”  result  that  ANCs  might  be  included  in  ISDA’s  first 
clause only to be excluded by its second.  Ante, at 20. 
  But it is difficult to see anything “implausible” about that 
result.  When Congress adopted ANSCA in 1971, it “created 
over  200  new  legal  entities  that  overlapped  with  existing 
tribes and tribal nonprofit service organizations.”  Brief for 
Professors and Historians as Amici Curiae 27.  At that time, 
there was no List Act or statutory criteria for formal recog-
nition.  Instead, as the Court of Appeals ably documented, 
confusion reigned about whether and which Alaskan enti-
ties ultimately might be recognized as tribes.  976 F. 3d, at 
18;  see  also  Brief  for  Professors  and  Historians  as  Amici 
Curiae  28;  Cohen,  Handbook  of  Federal  Indian  Law  270–
271 (1941).  When Congress adopted ISDA just four years 
later, it sought to account for this uncertainty.  The statute