Here is the opinion.
Here is an excerpt:
Arctic Slope Native Association, Ltd., (“ASNA”) ap- peals a decision of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) dismissing ASNA’s breach-of-contract claim under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) as time-barred. Because the CDA’s six-year statute of limitations should have been equitably tolled, we reverse and remand.
Here are the briefs:
As we guessed earlier, in light of Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, the Supreme Court GVR’d Arctic Slope v. Sebelius this morning. The case returns to the Federal Circuit for further consideration.
Sebelius v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe was denied
The order list is here.
In other Supreme Court news:
No health care decision today.
U.S. v. Arizona (immigration law case) was reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Here is today’s order list. Lower court materials are here. Cert stage materials are here.
The Court took no action on the Arctic Slope petition, apparently accepting the SG’s recommendation to hold that case pending the outcome of this case.
From SCOTUSblog today:
Back on the civil side, we have Arctic Slope Native Assoc. v. Sebelius, 11-83. No, it’s not another health care challenge: Arctic Slope concerns a Native American contractor stiffed by a government agency because it did not have enough money left in its annual appropriation to pay. Per the Solicitor General’s recommendation, the case is likely being held for Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 11-551, a pending government petition that raises a similar question.
Scotusblog’s list of petitions to watch for last week’s conference is here.
The government recommended a hold in this case, arguing that the Ramah Navajo petition is a better vehicle. So, maybe the Court will resist this case, and hold it pending the decision in Ramah, or perhaps relist here and then consolidate it with Ramah.
Here:
Arctic Slope Petition for En Banc Review
USA Opposition to Arctic Slope Petition for En Banc Review
Federal Circuit panel opinion here.
SCOTUSblog continues to not take any chances with Indian law cases, listing both Cobell v. Salazar and Arctic Slope Native Association v. Sebeliusas petitions to watch for tomorrow’s conference.
Links to our coverage of the Cobell cert petition and government opposition are here and here.
Here: Metlakatla Indian Community Cert Petition
Questions presented:
1. Did the Federal Circuit err when it ruled that the limitations period in Section 605(a) of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) is not jurisdictional, but then also held that the timely filing of a claim and exhaustion under Section 605(a) is a jurisdictional requirement that has to be met before class action tolling may apply to that very same limitations period?
2. Did the Federal Circuit err in holding that a potential class member must take action to establish class action court jurisdiction over that potential class member’s claim in order for that same class member to obtain the benefit of class action limitations tolling?
This looks like a companion case to Arctic Slope v. Sebelius.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.