Alaska Supreme Court Extends Tribal Sovereign Immunity: A Landmark Decision with a Far-Reaching Impact

By Heidi McNeil Staudenmaier and Kelsey Haake¹

In a significant legal development, the Alaska Supreme Court recently expanded tribal sovereign immunity to include tribal consortiums, overturning a precedent set two decades ago. The groundbreaking decision of Ito v. Copper River Native Ass’n., has profound implications not only for tribal entities like the Copper River Native Association (CRNA), but also for the broader legal landscape in Alaska and potentially elsewhere.

The heart of this decision revolved around CRNA, a tribally run nonprofit providing essential services to its members, mostly related to healthcare. CRNA was established in 1972 as an “intertribal consortium under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act” to provide healthcare services to their tribal members. Yvonne Ito, a former employee, sued CRNA for wrongful termination claiming that CRNA breached their “covenant of good faith and fair dealing in her employment contract.'' Ito’s claim prompted a debate whether CRNA was entitled to sovereign immunity. In ruling in favor of CRNA, the court extended the long-established Federal Indian law principle of sovereign immunity held by tribes to tribal consortiums, effectively shielding them from civil lawsuits unless they consent to waive their immunity.

CRNA urged the Alaska Superior Court to evaluate the principles of sovereign immunity established in the Ninth Circuit Court case decision, White v. University of California,² concluding that entities considered an “arm of the tribe” share sovereign immunity. While the Alaska Supreme Court deviated in its reasoning compared to the Alaska Superior Court, both courts concluded that CRNA was entitled to tribal sovereignty. The Alaska Supreme Court called upon Runyon ex rel, B.R. v. Ass’n of Vill. Council Presidents³, as well as Breakthrough Mgmt. Grp. Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino Resort ⁴, to determine if CRNA is considered an arm of its member tribes and fully entitled to tribal sovereign immunity by examining factors related to the creation of CRNA.

More specifically, the Alaska Supreme Court hinged its decision on the five factors established in Breakthrough: (1) purpose of the entity, (2) method of forming the entity, (3) structure, ownership, management, and control of the entity, (4) intent of the tribe to share the tribe’s sovereign immunity, and (5) the financial relationship between the tribal consortium and the tribes. After evaluating CRNA under these factors, the Alaska Supreme Court concluded “CRNA is an arm of its member tribes and entitled to tribal sovereign immunity” and thus, affirmed the Alaska Superior Court’s order dismissing Ito’s complaint.

This decision marks a departure from the court's previous stance, aligning Alaska with broader legal trends recognizing and affirming tribal sovereignty apparent within the context of Native American tribes in the contiguous United States. The Alaska Supreme Court, with this ruling, acknowledged the evolving understanding of tribal governments’ immunity to lawsuits, reflecting similar rulings at the federal circuit and other state level courts. By extending immunity to tribal consortiums, the court affirms tribes’ rights to govern their affairs and provide for their communities.

The implications of this ruling are vast and multifaceted. Tribal consortiums are often the largest employers in Alaskan communities. These entities will now have greater protection from legal challenges, enabling them to focus on delivering vital services, like healthcare and other social services, to their communities. 

The decision is not without controversy. Alaska Supreme Court Justice Warren W. Matthews dissented, expressing concerns that the decision would weaken state sovereignty and curtail the rights of numerous employees of tribal entities and contractors engaged in business with tribal consortiums. Critics worry about the impact on enforcement mechanisms and the ability of employees to seek recourse in cases of harassment, discrimination, wage theft, or other similar issues. Nonetheless, proponents argue that these concerns may be overstated, emphasizing the need to safeguard tribal entities from legal attacks that could divert resources away from much needed healthcare and social services.

In conclusion, the Alaska Supreme Court's decision to extend tribal sovereign immunity represents a significant milestone in tribal law. By recognizing the immunity of tribal consortiums, the court reaffirms tribes' rights to self-governance and underscores their role in delivering vital services for their communities. As Alaska moves forward in the wake of this landmark ruling, the dialogue surrounding tribal sovereignty and legal immunity will undoubtedly continue to evolve.

Footnotes

1. Ito v. Copper River Native Ass’n., No. S-17965, 2024 WL 1820277 (Alaska 2024). [Back]
2. 765 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2014). [Back]
3. 84 P.3d 437 (Alaska 2004). [Back]
4. 629 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2010). [Back]