Volume 599 U. S. Part 1 Pages 382–418

OFFICIAL REPORTS OF

THE SUPREME COURT June 15, 2023

Page Proof Pending Publication

REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions

NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 382 OCTOBER TERM, 2022

Syllabus

LAC du FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS et al. v. COUGHLIN certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the rst circuit No. 22–227. Argued April 24, 2023—Decided June 15, 2023 Petitioner Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (the Band) is a federally recognized Indian tribe. One of the Band's businesses, Lendgreen, extended respondent Brian Coughlin a payday loan. Shortly after receiving the loan, Coughlin fled for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, triggering an automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code against further collection efforts by his creditors. But Lendgreen al- legedly continued attempting to collect Coughlin's debt. Coughlin fled a motion in Bankruptcy Court to enforce the automatic stay and recover damages. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the suit on tribal sovereign immunity grounds. The First Circuit reversed, concluding that the Code “unequivocally strips tribes of their immunity.” 33 F. 4th 600, 603. Page Proof Held: The Bankruptcy CodePending Publication unambiguously abrogates the sovereign im- munity of all governments, including federally recognized Indian tribes. Pp. 386–399. (a) Two provisions of the Bankruptcy Code lie at the heart of this case. The frst, 11 U. S. C. § 106(a), expressly abrogates the sovereign immunity of “governmental unit[s]” for enumerated purposes. The sec- ond, § 101(27), defnes “governmental unit” as “United States; State; Commonwealth; District; Territory; municipality; foreign state; depart- ment, agency, or instrumentality of the United States . . . , a State, a Commonwealth, a District, a Territory, a municipality, or a foreign state; or other foreign or domestic government.” In order for these provi- sions to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity, Congress “must [have made] its intent . . . `unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.' ” Financial Oversight and Management Bd. for P. R. v. Centro De Peri- odismo Investigativo, Inc., 598 U. S. 339, 346. If the statute can plausi- bly be read to preserve sovereign immunity, Congress has not unambig- uously expressed the requisite intent. FAA v. Cooper, 566 U. S. 284, 290. But Congress need not use any particular words to pass this clear- statement test. Pp. 386–388. (b) The Bankruptcy Code unequivocally abrogates the sovereign im- munity of any and every government with the power to assert such immunity. Because federally recognized tribes unquestionably ft that Cite as: 599 U. S. 382 (2023) 383

Syllabus

description, the Code's abrogation provision plainly applies to them as well. Pp. 388–399. (1) Several features of the statute's text and structure point the way. To start, the defnition of “governmental unit” exudes comprehen- siveness. It begins with a long list of governments, varying in location, nature, and size. It then proceeds to capture subdivisions and compo- nents of every government in that list. And it concludes with a broad catchall phrase, sweeping in “other foreign or domestic government[s].” § 101(27). Moreover, the catchall phrase's pairi