NATIVE LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Rosa Gibson
In Ito v. Copper River Native Ass’n., 547 P.3d 1003 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court overturned Runyon ex rel. B.R. v. Ass’n. of Village Council Presidents, 84 P.3d 437 (Alaska 2004), and held that the Copper River Native Association (CRNA) was entitled to sovereign immunity because, under a five-factor inquiry, it was an arm of its member tribes. (Id. at 1021, 1026). CRNA, an Alaska nonprofit corporation whose members were federally recognized tribes, provided services including healthcare to its member tribes. (Id. at 1008). The member tribes elected representatives to CRNA’s board of directors and passed resolutions authorizing CRNA to provide its services. (Id.). CRNA hired Ito in 2018 and terminated her employment in 2019; Ito sued (Id. at 1008–09). On appeal, Ito argued that CRNA was not entitled to sovereign immunity under Runyon. (Id. at 1008). The court undertook a stare decisis analysis, determining it was appropriate to overrule Runyon in light of substantial developments in tribal sovereign immunity doctrine from both circuit and state courts. (Id. at 1016). Departing from Runyon’s single-factor inquiry that focused on the financial insulation of the entity from the tribe, the court instead employed a multifactor approach that weighs (1) the entity’s purpose, (2) its method of creation, (3) control, (4) tribal intent, and (5) the financial relationship between the entity and the tribe. (Id. at 1020, 1022). The court reasoned that the factors weighed in favor of CRNA’s immunity, especially CRNA’s purpose to provide essential healthcare services to tribes and its intent to work closely with its member tribes. (Id. at 1026). Affirming the superior court’s dismissal, the supreme court overturned Runyon and held that CRNA was entitled to sovereign immunity because, under a five-factor inquiry, it was an arm of its member tribes. (Id. at 1021, 1026).
