Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS ET AL. v. COUGHLIN CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST 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 filed 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 filed a motion in Bankruptcy Court to enforce the automatic stay and re- cover 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. Held: The Bankruptcy Code unambiguously abrogates the sovereign im- munity of all governments, including federally recognized Indian tribes. Pp. 3–16. (a) Two provisions of the Bankruptcy Code lie at the heart of this case. The first, 11 U. S. C. §106(a), expressly abrogates the sovereign immunity of “governmental unit[s]” for enumerated purposes. The second, §101(27), defines “governmental unit” as “United States; State; Commonwealth; District; Territory; municipality; foreign state; de- partment, 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 pro- visions to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity, Congress “must [have made] its intent . . . ‘unmistakably clear in the language of the stat- ute.’ ” Financial Oversight and Management Bd. for P. R. v. Centro De Periodismo Investigativo, Inc., 598 U. S. ___, ___. If the statute can 2 LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS v. COUGHLIN Syllabus

plausibly be read to preserve sovereign immunity, Congress has not unambiguously 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. 3–4. (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 fit that description, the Code’s abrogation provision plainly applies to them as well. Pp. 4–16. (1) Several features of the statute’s text and structure point the way. To start, the definition of “governmental unit” exudes compre- hensiveness. It begins with a long list of governments, varying in lo- cation, nature, and size. It then proceeds to capture subdivisions and components of every government in that list. And it concludes with a broad catchall phrase, sweeping in “other foreign or domestic govern- ment[s].” §101(27). Moreover, the catchall phrase’s pairing of ex- tremes—i.e., “foreign or domestic”—appearing at the end of an exten- sive list unambiguously indicates Congress’s intent to cover all governments in §101(27)’s definition. The abrogation provisi