Election law changes? Our legislation tracker’s got you. Check it out!

Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin
Term: 2022
Important Dates
Argued: April 24, 2023
Decided: June 15, 2023
Outcome
affirmed
Vote
8-1
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Clarence Thomas
Dissenting
Neil Gorsuch

Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 15, 2023, during the court's October 2022-2023 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 24, 2023. In a 8-1 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, holding that the Bankruptcy Code unambiguously overrules tribal sovereign immunity. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the Bankruptcy Code and its effect on the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: “Whether the Bankruptcy Code expresses unequivocally Congress's intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes.”[2]
  • The outcome: In a 8-1 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, holding that the Bankruptcy Code unambiguously overrules tribal sovereign immunity. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the opinion of the court.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Lendgreen is an online lending company owned by Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. In 2019, Brian Coughlin took a loan from the company but filed for bankruptcy later that year in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts. When Coughlin filed for bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Code placed an automatic stay on debt collection efforts related to Coughlin’s case. Despite the stay, the Band continued to attempt to collect the funds Coughlin owed them.[3][4] Coughlin filed for the bankruptcy court to enforce the automatic stay against the Band, requesting an order prohibiting collection attempts. He also requested that the Band pay him damages for going against the stay. [5]

    Native American tribes are sovereign entities; they generally hold the same immunities as other sovereign governments. The Bankruptcy Code revokes the sovereign immunity of governmental units, but it does not specifically list Native American tribes in 11 U.S.C. § 101(27) when defining what constitutes a governmental unit.[3][5]

    11 U.S.C. § 101(27)

    11 U.S.C. § 101(27) - Section 101 - Definitions states:

    The term "governmental unit" means United States; State; Commonwealth; District; Territory; municipality; foreign state; department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States (but not a United States trustee while serving as a trustee in a case under this title), a State, a Commonwealth, a District, a Territory, a municipality, or a foreign state; or other foreign or domestic government.

    In response to Coughlin's motion, the Band argued to the bankruptcy court that the Bankruptcy Code does not explicitly list Native American tribes in its definition of governmental units, and they can therefore continue collection efforts. The court granted the Band’s motion to dismiss Coughlin’s case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the bankruptcy court’s ruling and allowed Coughlin to enforce the automatic stay against the Band.[5] The band has appealed the decision of the circuit court to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS has been asked to determine if the Bankruptcy Code revokes tribal sovereign immunity.[3]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether the Bankruptcy Code expresses unequivocally Congress's intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes.

    [6]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    In a 8-1 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, holding that the Bankruptcy Code unambiguously overrules tribal sovereign immunity. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the opinion of the court.[1][3]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote:[1]

    “ We conclude that the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally abrogates the sovereign immunity of any and every government that possesses the power to assert such immunity. Federally recognized tribes undeniably fit that description; therefore, the Code’s abrogation provision plainly applies to them as well.


    Several features of the provisions’ text and structure compel this conclusion.

    As an initial matter, the definition of “governmental unit” exudes comprehensiveness from beginning to end. Congress has rattled off a long list of governments that vary in geographic location, size, and nature. §101(27) (including municipalities, districts, Territories, Commonwealths, States, the United States, and foreign states). The provision then proceeds to capture subdivisions and components of every government within that list. Ibid. (accounting for any “department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States . . . , a State, a Commonwealth, a District, a Territory, a municipality, or a foreign state”). And it concludes with a broad catchall phrase, sweeping in “other foreign or domestic government[s].” Ibid.

    When faced with analogously structured provisions in other contexts, we have noted their all-encompassing scope. See, e.g., Taylor v. United States, 579 U. S. 301, 305–306 (2016) (characterizing as “unmistakably broad” a criminal statute defining “commerce” to include a list of specific instances in which the Federal Government would have jurisdiction, followed by a broad residual phrase); see also Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc., 596 U. S. ___, ___, n. 1 (2022) (slip op., at 4, n. 1) (similar). We find the strikingly broad scope of §101(27)’s definition of “governmental unit” to be significant in this context as well.

    The catchall phrase Congress used in §101(27) is also notable in and of itself. Few phrases in the English language express all-inclusiveness more than the pairing of two extremes. “Rain or shine” is a classic example: If an event is scheduled to occur rain or shine, it will take place whatever the weather that day might be. Same with the phrase “near and far”: If people are traveling from near and far, they are coming from all over the map, regardless of the particular distance from point A to point B.

    The pairing of “foreign” with “domestic” is of a piece with those other common expressions. For instance, if someone asks you to identify car manufacturers, “foreign or domestic,” your task is to name any and all manufacturers that come to mind, without particular regard to where exactly the cars are made or the location of the companies’ headquarters. Similarly, at the start of each Congress, a cadre of newly elected officials “‘solemnly swear’ ” to “‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.’” 5 U. S. C. §3331. That oath—which each Member of Congress who enacted the Bankruptcy Code took—indisputably pertains to enemies anywhere in the world. Accordingly, we find that, by coupling foreign and domestic together, and placing the pair at the end of an extensive list, Congress unmistakably intended to cover all governments in §101(27)’s definition, whatever their location, nature, or type.

    It is also significant that the abrogation of sovereign immunity in §106(a) plainly applies to all “governmental unit[s]” as defined by §101(27). Congress did not cherrypick certain governments from §101(27)’s capacious list and only abrogate immunity with respect to those it had so selected. Nor did Congress suggest that, for purposes of §106(a)’s abrogation of sovereign immunity, some types of governments should be treated differently than others. Instead, Congress categorically abrogated the sovereign immunity of any governmental unit that might attempt to assert it.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    As I have explained, to the extent that tribes possess sovereign immunity at all, that immunity does not extend to “suits arising out of a tribe’s commercial activities conducted beyond its territory.” Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U. S. 782, 815 (2014) (dissenting opinion). Because respondent’s stay-enforcement motion arose from petitioners’ off-reservation commercial conduct, petitioners lack sovereign immunity regardless of the Bankruptcy Code’s abrogation provision. I therefore concur in the Court’s judgment.[6]

    		”
    —JusticeClarence Thomas

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.

    In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “ Until today, there was “not one example in all of history where [this] Court ha[d] found that Congress intended to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity without expressly mentioning Indian tribes somewhere in the statute.” In re Greektown Holdings, LLC, 917 F. 3d 451, 460 (CA6 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). No longer. The Court reads the phrase “other foreign or domestic government,” 11 U. S. C. §101(27), as synonymous with “any and every government,” ante, at 4—all for the purpose of holding that §106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code abrogates tribal sovereign immunity. It is a plausible interpretation. But plausible is not the standard our tribal immunity jurisprudence demands. Before holding that Congress has vitiated tribal immunity, the Legislature must “unequivocally express” its intent to achieve that result. C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 532 U. S. 411, 418 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).


    Respectfully, I do not think the language here does the trick. The phrase “other foreign or domestic government” could mean what the Court suggests: every government, everywhere. But it could also mean what it says: every “other foreign . . . government”; every “other . . . domestic government.” And properly understood, Tribes are neither of those things. Instead, the Constitution’s text—and two centuries of history and precedent—establish that Tribes enjoy a unique status in our law. Because this reading of the statute is itself (at worst) a plausible one, I would hold that the Bankruptcy Code flunks this Court’s clear statement rule and reverse.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2022-2023

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[9]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 U.S. Supreme Court, “Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. v. Coughlin,” “Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit”," accessed June 15, 2023
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 'Supreme Court, "22-227 LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND V. COUGHLIN," accessed January 20, 2023
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 SCOTUSblog, Relist-palooza: Religious exercise, the False Claims Act, takings clause, RICO, bank secrecy, and more, January 11, 2023 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "SCOTUSblog" defined multiple times with different content
    4. ↑ Oyez, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin, accessed April 24, 2023
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Casetext, Coughlin v. Lac Du Flambeau Band Indians (In re Coughlin), May 6, 2022
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued April 24, 2023
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued April 24, 2023
    9. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Lac_du_Flambeau_Band_of_Lake_Superior_Chippewa_Indians_v._Coughlin&oldid=9271661"