<Dt> Avoidance of abrogation of state sovereignty </Dt> <Dd> See Gregory v. Ashcroft; see also Gonzales v. Oregon; see also Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, except where such would deprive the defendant of bedrock, foundational rights that the Federal Government intended to be the minimum floor that the states were not allowed to fall beneath; Dombrowski v Pfister . </Dd> <Dl> <Dt> "Indian" Canon </Dt> <Dd> National statute must be construed in favor of Native Americans . See Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 534 U.S. 84 (2001): "statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of Indians with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit ." This canon can be likened to the doctrine of contra proferentem in contract law . </Dd> </Dl> <Dt> "Indian" Canon </Dt>

Which of the following does a court not consider when interpreting the meaning of a statute