Supreme Court Says Alaska Natives Should Get COVID-19 Aid
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Friday that millions of dollars in COVID-19 relief aid tied up in court for months, rightfully should be given to Alaska Natives rather than tribes in other parts of the country.
The case cast a spotlight on a little known difference between how tribes and Alaska natives are defined by the United States.
Unlike in the lower 48 states, Alaska Native tribes aren’t situated on reservations. Instead, Native land is owned by for-profit Alaska Native corporations created under a 1971 law.
Instead of being members of a sovereign nation, Alaska Natives own shares in the corporations, which provide a range of services from healthcare to housing assistance.
The underlying case stemmed from a dispute over whether $8 billion earmarked for “tribal governments” in the successive COVID-19 relief bill should be shared with the Alaska corporations.
The federal government had set aside more than $530 million for Alaska Native corporations under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.
Three groups of Native American tribes from other parts of the United States sued in federal court in Washington in April 2020 seeking to prevent Alaska Native corporations from receiving any of the funds.
Among the challengers were the Navajo Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.
The Biden administration said as far as it is concerned the corporations should be treated as Indian tribes and that doing differently would be a dramatic departure from the status quo.
On Friday, the court agreed.
“The Court today affirms what the Federal Government has maintained for almost half a century: ANCs are Indian tribes,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor for a 6-3 majority that included both liberal and conservative members of the court.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch were joined by liberal Justice Elena Kagan in dissent.
In The News
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court should overturn its landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide and let states decide whether to regulate abortion before a fetus can survive outside the womb, the office of Mississippi's Republican attorney general argued in papers filed Thursday... Read More
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court plans to hear a case in its next term that could expand rights of discrimination victims to collect compensation for "emotional distress." A ruling that allows the compensation could widely broaden the liability for discrimination, potentially allowing anyone victimized by... Read More
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a California law that required nonprofits to disclose lists of their biggest donors, holding the requirement burdened donors’ First Amendment rights and was not narrowly tailored to an important government interest. In a 6-3 ruling authored by... Read More
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday to uphold two provisions of Arizona’s election law that critics argued unfairly impinged on the rights of Black, Hispanic and Native Americans voters. By a 6-3 margin, the justices held that a 2016 law that limits who can return... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday a company building a natural gas pipeline in New Jersey can continue to rely on eminent domain to claim state land in its path. The 5-4 ruling by the court included both liberal and conservative members of the court... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — A closely watched voting rights dispute from Arizona is among five cases standing between the Supreme Court and its summer break. But even before the justices wrap up their work, likely later this week, they could say whether they'll add more high-profile issues... Read More