Here is the opinion.
Here is the Supreme Court’s GVR order.
Previous lower court order here.
contract support costs
Menominee CSC Claims against IHS Fail on Remand from the D.C. Circuit
Here are the materials in Menominee Tribe v. United States (D. D.C.):
DCT Order Dismissing Menominee Claims
Menominee Motion for Summary J
The D.C. Circuit materials are here. I guess we can expect a return trip.
Tenth Circuit Sides with Southern Ute in Contract Support Costs Dispute with IHS
Tenth Circuit Denies En Banc Petition in Ramah
Here is that order:
Order Denying Petition for Rehearing
And the briefs:
The panel opinion and briefs are available here.
And so the circuit split with the Federal Circuit is complete.
Tenth Circuit Victory for Tribes in Self-Determination Act Contract Support Costs Case
Here are the materials in Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Salazar:
Federal Circuit Rejects Arctic Slope Contract Claims
Here is the opinion in Arctic Slope Native Association v. Sebelius (Fed. Cir.).
An excerpt:
Arctic Slope Native Association (“ASNA”) filed suit against the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) for breach of contract, alleging that the government failed to pay ASNA’s so-called contract support costs shortfall for fiscal years 1999 and 2000. The Secretary argued that the obligation to pay, under the contract and the statute, was subject to the availability of appropriations and that there were no available appropriations because Congress had provided that the appropriations available for the funding of contract support costs were “not to exceed” specified amounts. The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“the Board”) granted summary judgment for the Secretary. Arctic Slope Native Ass’n, Ltd. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., CBCA 294-ISDA, et al., 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,281 (C.B.C.A. Oct. 1, 2009). We affirm.
Metakatla Indian Community v. Sebelius Cert Petition
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.
Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments Survives Motion to Dismiss in Self-Determination Act Contract Claim
Here are the materials in Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments v. United States (D. D.C.):
DCT Order Denying Federal Motion to Dismiss
MHA Nation Survives Motion to Dismiss Claims for Contract Support Costs from IHS
Here is the opinion in Three Affiliated Tribes v. United States (D. D.C.) — MHA Nation v. US DCT Order
An excerpt:
laintiff Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation (“Three Tribes”) brings this action against the United States of America, Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Robert G. McSwain, Director of the Indian Health Service (“IHS”), and Charlene M. Red Thunder, Acting Area Director of the IHS, in their official capacities (collectively, “defendants”). The dispute arises from a contract proposal Three Tribes submitted to defendants to provide health services within its reservation pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”), 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq. Three Tribes claims that defendants improperly declined two portions of that proposal: (1) inclusion of contract support costs (“CSCs”) in Three Tribes’ annual funding agreement (Count I); and (2) permission to provide health care services to non-Indians pursuant to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (“IHCIA”), 25 U.S.C. § 1680c(b) (Count II). Now before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss. For the reasons explained below, the motion will be denied.
The materials:
“Slumber[ing] on its Rights”: Menominee Tribe v. US
This case regards a claim for contract support costs from IHS. The district court rejected the claim, in part, because the tribe “‘slumber[ed]’ on its rights.” Here are the materials:
Turtle Talk 