Page:Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin.pdf/6

Rh 2019) (concluding the reverse). We granted certiorari to address the lower courts’ inconsistent holdings. 598 U. S. ___ (2023).

Two provisions of the Bankruptcy Code lie at the crux of this case. The first—11 U. S. C. §106(a)—abrogates the sovereign immunity of “governmental unit[s].” It provides: “Notwithstanding an assertion of sovereign immunity, sovereign immunity is abrogated as to a governmental unit to the extent set forth in this section.” Section 106(a) goes on to enumerate a list of Code provisions to which the abrogation applies, including the provision governing automatic stays.

The second relevant provision is §101(27). That provision defines “governmental unit” for purposes of the Code. It states that that term "“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.”"

The central question before us is whether the abrogation provision in §106(a) and the definition of “governmental unit” in §101(27), taken together, unambiguously abrogate the sovereign immunity of federally recognized tribes.

To “abrogate sovereign immunity,” Congress “must make its intent … ‘unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.’ ” Financial Oversight and Management Bd. for P. R. v. Centro De Periodismo Investigativo, Inc., 598 U. S. ___, ___ (2023) (slip op., at 6). This well-settled rule applies