Opinion of the Court
the ones at issue here.[1] Moreover, the universe of cases in which we have addressed federal statutes abrogating tribal sovereign immunity is exceedingly slim.[2]
In any event, the fact that Congress has referenced tribes specifically in some statutes abrogating tribal sovereign immunity does not foreclose it from using different language to accomplish that same goal in other statutory contexts. Even petitioners appear to concede this basic point. They agree that Congress could have used a phrase like “every government” or “any government with sovereign immunity” to express unambiguously the requisite intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of tribes. Id., at 27 (internal quotation marks omitted). For the reasons discussed above, we believe Congress did just that.
B
Petitioners further contend that even if the relevant provisions could theoretically cover tribes, the statute can plausibly be read in a way that preserves their immunity.
- ↑ Petitioners rely, for instance, on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, which authorizes a “person” to “commence a civil action.” 42 U. S. C. §6972(a). “Person” is defined under that statute to include a “municipality,” which is in turn defined to encompass “a city, town, borough, county, parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State law … or an Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization.” §§6903(13), (15); see also Brief for Petitioners 25 (citing similar provisions). The fact that Congress mentioned Indian tribes specifically when including them in the category of a “person” or “municipality” says little about Congress’s purported need to name Indian tribes when referring to them as a “governmental unit” or “other foreign or domestic government.”
- ↑ The parties’ briefing identifies only two cases. See Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U. S. 782, 791 (2014) (recognizing partial abrogation); United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U. S. 506, 513 (1940).
