Page:Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin.pdf/24

Rh

, dissenting.

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,” —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