Alaska Supreme Court rules Tanana Chiefs Conference immune from member village's lawsuit

Dot Lake Village cannot pursue its bylaws lawsuit against the Interior Alaska consortium that runs its health programs in state court. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Friday that the Tanana Chiefs Conference holds tribal sovereign immunity as an arm of its member tribes and that no exception applies in this case, affirming the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. **The court did not decide whether TCC broke its bylaws**, only that no state court can take up the question.

The court also affirmed the $11,888 in attorney's fees the Fairbanks superior court awarded TCC. Dot Lake gave up its own immunity on that question when it filed suit, the court held.

Dot Lake, a federally recognized tribe and TCC member, sued in March 2022 after the TCC board voted in December 2021 to recall president Chief P.J. Simon. The village asked the court to void the recall and to make the board follow its own meeting procedures, arguing TCC had violated its bylaws.

The outcome turned on Ito v. Copper River Native Association, decided in April 2024, which overturned the court's 2004 decision in Runyon and adopted a five-factor inquiry into purpose, method of creation, control, tribal intent and financial relationship. No single factor decides it.

TCC is an intertribal consortium of 42 Alaska Native villages and urban Native groups, 37 of them federally recognized tribes. It provides health services under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and the Alaska Tribal Health Compact. Writing for the court, Justice Oravec said that role weighs heavily toward immunity because a money judgment against TCC "would divert funds from tribal healthcare services."

TCC's incorporation under Alaska law weighed against immunity, but its 1962 origins and creation by sovereign member tribes weighed slightly in favor. On intent, the court weighed Dot Lake's resolution disclaiming any delegation of immunity against the Kaltag Tribal Council's contrary resolution and TCC's authorization under that Act.

The court rejected Dot Lake's argument that a member tribe is a superior sovereign, declining to apply that exception to a suit against an arm-of-the-tribe entity over which the member holds no complete authority. It also held the suit could not proceed on the theory that TCC acted beyond its delegated powers, because Dot Lake named no individual official as a defendant.

The decision is Opinion No. 7827, case S-18599. **Dot Lake was represented by one Fairbanks lawyer, TCC by four from two Anchorage firms.** Having resolved the appeal on immunity, the court did not reach TCC's argument that no court can decide the dispute.