Document: 534 U.S. 84122 S.Ct. 528151 L.Ed.2d 474 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.CHICKASAW NATION, PETITIONERv.UNITED STATES No. 00-507. Argued October 2, 2001Decided November 27, 20011 Syllabus The Indian Regulatory Gaming Act (Gaming Act) provides, as relevant here, Internal Revenue Code (Code) provisions "(including []1441, 3402(q), 6041, and 6050I, chapter 35 ...) concerning reporting withholding taxes" with respect gambling operations shall apply tribes same way they States. 25 U.S.C. 2719(d)(i). Chapter imposes taxes from which it exempts certain state-controlled activities, but says nothing about tax withholding. Petitioners, Choctaw Chickasaw Nations, claim subsection's explicit parenthetical reference them paying those exempt. Rejecting claim, Tenth Circuit held subsection applies only reporting. Held: Section 2719(d)(i) does not exempt gambling-related imposes. Pp. 311. (a) language outside withholding, four references arguably concern Tribes nonetheless expands Act's scope beyond provisions-to tax-imposing contains-and at very least gives an ambiguity can resolved by applying canon statutes construed liberally favor Indians ambiguous interpreted their benefit. argument reduces phrase surplusage, there no reasonable reading statute. 34. (b) statute's too strong give independent operative effect. unambiguous without qualification "provisions ... taxes"; inside parenthetical, prefaced word "including," literally same, since "include" means "contain." use parentheses emphasizes fact within meant simply illustrative. To effect would require seriously rewriting rest One have read "including" mean what mean, namely, "including and." if referred (1) (2) "concerning wagering operations" far convoluted believe Congress intended it. There reason think sweep every provision wagering. matter issue-tax exemption-also counsels against accepting Tribes' interpretation. find comparable instance legislated exemption through a numerical cross-reference. Since more plausible role for play this providing illustrative list examples, common sense suggests "chapter 35" bad example included inadvertently, drafting mistake. 46. (c) legislative history on balance supports Court's conclusion. And canons interpretation point-that clause statute should given benefit-do determine how First, guides need conclusive. City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 105, 115. accept these conclusive here produce firmly believes conflict congressional intent. Second, specific often countered some maxim pointing different direction. Ibid. requiring court each "if possible" sometimes offset permitting reject words mere surplusage inadvertently inserted repugnant Moreover, pro-Indian warning interpreting federal exemptions unless clearly expressed. Given individualized nature previous cases, one cannot say inevitably stronger, particularly where rather than treaty issue. 611. 208 F.3d 871 (first judgment); 210 389 (second judgment), affirmed. Notes: 1 Together Nation Oklahoma (see Rule 12.4), also certiorari court. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED COURT APPEALS FOR TENTH CIRCUIT Breyer, J., delivered Court, Rehnquist, Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, JJ., joined, all Part II-B Scalia Thomas, joined. Opinion Justice Breyer Court.* In cases we must decide whether particular Act, 102 Stat. 2467-2486, 2701-2721 (1994 ed.), imposes-taxes pay. We hold create such exemption. 2 * subsection, codified 2719(d)(i), reads follows: 3 "The [the 1986] (including sections 1441, Code) winnings gaming conducted pursuant chapter, under Tribal-State compact entered into section 2710(d)(3) title effect, manner State operations." 4 "concer[n] its "includ[e]" 35." 35, however, taxes. Rather, taxes-excise occupational related gambling-from activities. See, e.g., 26 4401(a) ed.) (imposing 0.25% excise wager); 4411 $50 individual engaged business); 4402(3) (exempting state-operated operations, lotteries). 5 lawsuit two Native American Tribes, Brief Petitioners 34-36. They upon 35. rejected ground despite reference, "reporting taxes." 871, 883-884 (2000); see (2000). Appeals Federal Circuit, reached opposite Little Six, 1361, 1366 granted resolve conflict. agree Circuit. II 6 basic rests 35"-contained refers well. withholding." concern, See 1441 (withholding nonresident alien); 3402(q) winnings); 6041 (reporting businesses payments, including payments winnings, ohers); 6050I large cash receipts, applicable receipts). 7 But 35? correctly point out has do 28-29. add serve purpose, purpose expanding contain. therefore (like States) payment requirements. makes ambiguous. ask us special Indian-related interpretative canon, " 'statutes Indians' benefit." 13 (quoting Montana Blackfeet Tribe, 471 759, 766 (1985)). 8 claim. rejecting 35) ..." surplusage. Nonetheless, 9 bend wish-i.e., so For thing, unambiguous. It same. "contain" "comprise part whole." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 609 (1985). "contains" references-the "whole" "parts"-is ." illustrative, hence redundant-a circumstance underscored lack suggestion complete. Cf. 3406 (backup mentioned parenthetical). 10 Nor if, example, placed said Or, taxation mention latter possibility because bill became law once did way. when left committee, contained emphasized ("the and") cross-reference 11 recognize (made first time) could avoid kinds Code": first, gaming," and, second, Reply 8-10. grammar permits reading. reading, even ultimately comprehensible, wagering-a result unnatural accomplish. 12 issue That When enacts exemption, ordinarily explicitly. inexplicit cross-reference-especially might easily escape notice. As said, examples. So considered, example-an inadvertently. presence warrant remainder language. necessarily ambiguous, i.e., "capable being understood possible senses ways." 77 Indeed, ordinary life, understand analogous instruction-say, "Test drive cars, Plymouth, Nissan, Chevrolet, Ford, Kitchenaid"-not creating ambiguity, reflecting Here too, context, mistake, failure delete inappropriate later enacted law. 229 1383, 1385 (CA Fed. 2000) (Dyk, dissenting denial rehearing en banc) ("The earmarks simple mistake drafting"). B 14 our appeared original Senate applied both 15 "Provisions operations," S. 555, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., 37 (1987). 16 With "taxation" present, include concerns taxation, committee deleted Why permit remain? Committee documents say. 17 argue intentionally substitute "taxation." An amicus tries support view tribal representative's testimony were "opposed indication collecting bingo Hearings 555 1303 Select Affairs, 109 (1987) (statement Lionel John, Executive Director South Eastern Tribes). Other thought "vague," preferring clear statement "that Service authority tribes." Id., 433, 435 Charles W. Blackwell, Representative Tribal Government Policy Consultants, Inc.). 18 Substitution "taxation," served witnesses purposes, doing took taxed substituted likely taxed. anyone seeking grant confusion-generating cross-reference, A, supra, pre-existing unambiguously carried objective. easier drafters, having entire while was still bill, unintentionally failed remove had become superfluous cross-reference-particularly tax-knowledgeable Finance never received opportunity examine bill. Doc. 100-1, Manual, 30 (proposed legislation revenue measures Finance). 19 Finally, letter written authors, stating "by 35," treatment wagers governments state App. Pet. Cert. 113a. letter, after event. expresses views member committee. effort explain critical circumstance, elimination express Senator's interpretive preference, preference overcome considerations discussed. Heintz Jenkins, 514 291, 298 (1995) (A "statement [made] during process, legislators relied voting represents informed person others (or not) differently"). York Telephone Co. Dept. Labor, 440 519, 564, n. (1979) (Powell, dissenting) comments single Congressman, long passage [act issue], aid determining intent ..."). 20 sum, adopt back deleted. will assume 'to enact statutory earlier discarded language.' INS Cardoza&nbhyph;Fonseca, 480 421, 443 Nachman Corp. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 446 359, 392-393 (1980)); Gulf Oil Copp Paving Co., 419 186, 200 (1974) (same); Mescalero Apache Tribe Jones, 411 145, 157 (1973) (same). here. C 21 position. 'every statute' should, 'if possible,' 'effect.' Menasche, 348 528, 538-539 (1955) Montclair Ramsdell, 107 147, 152 (1883)). deprives "statutes U.S., 766; Carolina Catawba Inc., 476 498, 520 (1986) (Blackmun, dissenting). 22 mandatory rules. "need conclusive." 115 (2001). designed help judges Legislature's embodied circumstances evidencing force. instance, rely conclude wrote. Choteau Burnet, 283 691 (1931) (upholding reasonably clear); Superintendent Five Civilized Commissioner, 295 418 (1935) supra light discussed earlier, "fairly capable" interpretations, cf. 766, nor fairly "possible." 23 Specific "are direction." "as surplusage" "inadvertently K. Llewellyn, Common Law Tradition 525 (1960). force surplus consist parenthetical. Cabell Huntington Hospital, Shalala, 101 984, 990 (CA4 1996) ("A is, all, used terms statute"). 24 assumes intends benefit warns Wells Fargo Bank, 485 351, 354 (1988) ("[E]xemptions proved"); Squire Capoeman, 351 1, (1956) ("[T]o valid, laws expressed"); Trust Helvering, 307 57, 60 (1939) ("Exemptions implication"). stronger-particularly post, 7. individualized, involving many legal circumstances, assessment canons' relative strength. Compare, Choate Trapp, 224 665, 675-676 (1912) (interpreting treaty-related land patents "nontaxable" property right invalidating tax); Squire, (Indian offsetting make freeing 'of charge incumbrance whatsoever' includes McClanahan Arizona Tax Comm'n, 164, 174 (state violates principle sovereignty treaty), Mescalero, (relying taxable); Choteau, (language exemption); Consequently, difference argue. judgments ordered. 27 O'Connor, filed opinion, Souter, Thomas join opinion. 28 whom Souter joins, dissenting. 29 today holds 2719(d) fails Nations (Nations) enjoyed Because I interpretation, Indians, benefit," (1985), respectfully dissent. incorporates error drafting. disagree, section's error. 31 originally proposed Senate, (IGRA) wagering-related States: 32 1986, 33 Affairs altered contradictory ways. restricted relating winnings" operations. 2719(d). added listing relates generally, winnings. 34 changes been assume, latter. equally adopted restrictive general characterization sections. speculate bill's drafters restriction place altered. ante, Both inclusion alteration occurred Rep. 100-446 (1988), adopted. If restriction, just characterize unintentional holdover version 36 True, requires sustain meaning themselves bear. fares better: excising Congress' treating Potter 155 438, (1894) (the "cannot regarded surplusage; something"); 3. Surplusage redundant language, Babbitt Sweet Home Chapter, Communities Great Ore., 515 687, 697-698 (1995); Popkin, Materials Legislation: Political Language Process 214 (3d ed. 2001)-the negates undeniably bears separate meaning. step undertaken lightly. approaches statute, 4. Neither rewritings "serious" other: At most, involves reversing change 4-5. 38 argues that, occurs negating less damage concluding narrowly drawn. am aware generally accepted construction favoring them, see, Eskridge, P. Frickey, & E. Garrett, Legislation Statutory Interpretation, (2000) (listing canons), wise today. importance depends punctuation, Nat. Bank Ore. Independent Ins. Agents America, 508 439, 454 (1993) ("[A] purported plain-meaning analysis based punctuation incomplete runs risk distorting true meaning"). 39 analysis: illustration match description, much question description illustration. Where another possible-and stage-Congress' choice matches 2719(d)'s specifically lists doctrine governs general, Crawford Fitting J. T. Gibbons, 482 437, 445 (1987), significant follows. 40 required policy behind anything, weighs Nations. central enacting IGRA "to provide basis operation promoting economic development, self-sufficiency, governments." 2702(1). Exempting preserves Nations' avoids giving competitive advantage interfere ability raise manner. 41 text, history, underlying policies resolves contradiction inherent section, appropriate turn construction. urge deciding lies subclass, "[R]ooted unique trust relationship between Indians," County Oneida N. Y., 470 226, 247 presumes assist wards disadvantages country them. Consistent well treaties: form enactment presumption supra; Yakima Confederated Bands Nation, 502 251 (1992). case, chosen enabling achieve rightly dictates presumed receive more, less, enterprise. 42 Of course, potential applicability case. Also principle, (1939); 10. These pull directions, former preferred Government's. 43 repeatedly conflict, predominates. 665 (1912), attempted making nontaxable merely bounty, capable withdrawn time. acknowledged responding: 44 "But Government's dealings rule exactly contrary. construction, instead strict, liberal; doubtful expressions, [Indian nations.]" 674-675. 45 (1956), conveyed 'free encumbrance whatsoever.' Although expressly nontaxability, "might sufficient taxation," id., Invoking 6-7, found 46 Likewise, 164 (1973), inferred reservations reserving lands exclusive occupancy so, noted that: "It true, rule, past Indians." 176 (citing 6). 47 regardless enactment, 5, alter canon's strength involved. primacy over surprising, supporting legality executive action yield "counterpresumption specific" Indians. Minnesota Mille Lacs Band Chippewa 526 172, 194, (1999). 48 extend exempted. Cherokee Tobacco, Wall. 616, 618, 620 (1871) (finding imposing 'articles produced anywhere exterior boundaries States' "); 691, 693-694 "subject[ing] income individual' tax," "income 'from source whatever' (refusing "[o]n face rights land, derived use"). went further, suggesting refuse absent "clear guidance." 156. Mescalero's formulation admittedly tension precedents decided day precedents, unanimous decision established practice. 49 provides persuasive case application precedents. Here, asked vague provided Instead, tiebreaker (or, implausible) constructions troubled 35's not. Breaking ties controversial uses 341 weakest kind substantive operates end analysis"). 50 Faced unhappy flawed error, thus long-established most favorable

Category: 1