{"id":31028,"date":"2023-04-24T04:02:10","date_gmt":"2023-04-24T08:02:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indianz.com\/News\/2023\/04\/24\/scotusblog-simple-indian-law-case-supreme-court\/"},"modified":"2023-07-31T17:25:48","modified_gmt":"2023-07-31T21:25:48","slug":"scotusblog-simple-indian-law-case-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/indianz.com\/News\/2023\/04\/24\/scotusblog-simple-indian-law-case-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUSblog: A ‘simple’ Indian law case before the U.S. Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"\"Lac<\/a>
A sign at Lac du Flambeau on the Lac du Flambeau Reservation in Wisconsin. Photo: Jim<\/a><\/figcaption>\r\n
Justices to consider tribal immunity from bankruptcy process<\/div>\r\n
Monday, April 24, 2023<\/div>\r\n
By Ronald Mann<\/div>\r\n
SCOTUSblog<\/div>\r\n
scotusblog.com<\/a><\/div>\r\n

<\/P>\r\nMonday\u2019s arguments in Lac du Flambeau Band v Coughlin<\/em><\/a> take the justices back once again to the question of tribal immunity. The specific question in this case is whether the Bankruptcy Code is sufficiently clear to abrogate the sovereign immunity of a federally recognized Indian tribe.\r\n

<\/P>\r\nTo put the dispute in context, two points of common agreement are important. First, although tribes start with sovereign immunity as a lingering relic of their existence before the Constitution, Congress has plenary authority to abrogate that immunity. Second, courts will read federal statutes to abrogate that immunity only when they speak to the point \u201cunequivocal[ly].\u201d \r\n

<\/P>\r\nThe relevant provision, the definition of \u201cgovernmental unit\u201d in the Bankruptcy Code, is undeniably broad, extending to include \u201cUnited States; State; Commonwealth; District; Territory; municipality; foreign state; department, agency, or instrumentality of [any of the foregoing]; or other foreign or domestic government.\u201d The question for the justices is whether that provision is broad enough to match that standard \u2013 does it \u201cunequivocally\u201d abrogate tribes\u2019 sovereign immunity.\r\n

<\/P>\r\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\"U.S.\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\tU.S. Supreme Court adds more Indian Country cases to docket\t\t<\/a>\n\t<\/div>\n\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\t

Indian Country is gearing up for another round of big cases at the nation\u2019s highest court, with water rights and tribal sovereignty on the line.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/a>\n\t<\/div>\n\t

\n\t\t\"Indianz.Com\"\t\tIndianz.Com\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\r\n

<\/P>\r\nThe particular facts of the case certainly put the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians in a bad position, as it presents a disadvantageous case for sovereign immunity. Specifically, the Band operates an online payday lending operation, which advances loans that would be illegal under the law of the jurisdictions in which many of their borrowers, including Brian Coughlin, reside. After Coughlin borrowed money from that lender, he filed for bankruptcy.\r\n

<\/P>\r\nNotwithstanding the Bankruptcy Code\u2019s automatic stay, the lender continued to engage in collection attempts; eventually Coughlin was hospitalized after a suicide attempt, which he links to the aggressive collection activity. The lower court\u2019s rejected Coughlin\u2019s request for an order \u2013 which would have been routine in a case involving a commercial lender \u2013 compelling the lender to comply with the automatic stay and to pay damages for the injuries caused by its cavalier violation of the stay.\r\n

<\/P>\r\nThe case is one of the simplest the justices will hear this year, because it involves no constitutional questions and, in truth, only the interpretation of a single phrase of a single statutory provision. The Band\u2019s argument is simple: the statute never mentions Indian tribes. Because it doesn\u2019t mention Indian tribes, the Band contends that the statute does not unequivocally extend to them. \r\n

<\/P>

<\/ins>