Opinion of the Court
56 (citations omitted). They can also “tax activities on the reservation.” Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U. S. 316, 327 (2008).
It is thus no surprise that Congress has repeatedly characterized tribes as governments.[1] And this Court has long recognized tribes’ governmental status as well. See, e.g., Bay Mills, 572 U. S., at 788–789; Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U. S., at 57–58. We have done so generally and also in the specific context of tribal sovereign immunity. Tribal sovereign immunity, “we have explained, is ‘a necessary corollary to Indian sovereignty and self-governance.’ ” Bay Mills, 572 U. S., at 788; see also id., at 789 (discussing immunity as an example of tribes’ “governmental powers and attributes”).
Putting the pieces together, our analysis of the question whether the Code abrogates the sovereign immunity of federally recognized tribes is remarkably straightforward. The Code unequivocally abrogates the sovereign immunity of all governments, categorically. Tribes are indisputably governments. Therefore, §106(a) unmistakably abrogates their sovereign immunity too.[2]
- ↑ See, e.g., Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, §104(a)(1), 88 Stat. 2207 (referring to “the strengthening or improvement of tribal government”); Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994, §§202(2), (5)(A), 108 Stat. 4271 (“recogniz[ing] a special government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes,” and “transferring control to tribal governments … over funding and decisionmaking for Federal programs”); Compact of Self-Governance Between the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe and the United States of America, Art. I, §2(c) (1995) (explaining that the Compact would allow the Tribe to “take its rightful place in the family of governments in the federal constitutional system,” and “reorganize tribal government programs and services”).
- ↑ Given this holding, we need not decide whether tribes qualify as purely “domestic” governments. Compare Brief for Petitioners 33 (insisting tribes are not clearly domestic governments), and post, at 5–11 (Gorsuch, J., dissenting) (similar), with Brief for Respondent 40–41 (contending that they are). See also infra, at 12–14.
