Federal Court Holds 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie Imposes Duty on Federal Government to Provide Adequate Health Care at Rosebud

Here are the materials in Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. United States (D.S.D.):

An excerpt:

As to the tribes that entered into the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie for the reasons discussed above, the Government’s duty—expressed at the time as furnishing “to the Indians the physician… and that such appropriations shall be made from time to time, on the estimate of the Secretary of the Interior, as will be sufficient to employ such persons”—can be interpreted under the canons of construction applicable to Indian treaties as requiring the Government to provide competent physician-led health care to the Tribe.

Prior post here.

Federal Court Dismisses Treaty Group Challenge to Self-Determination Contract between Oglala Sioux Tribe & Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Indian Health Service

Here are the materials in Gilbert v. Weahkee (D.S.D.):

5 Amended Complaint

17 IHS Motion to Dismiss

19 Response

19-3 Oglala Tribal Court Decision

31 Reply

38 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary J

39 Opposition

40 Reply

44 DCT Order

Fort McDermitt Prevails over IHS on Clinic in Oregon

Here are the materials in Fort McDermitt Paiute & Shoshone Tribe v. Azar (formerly Price) (D.D.C.):

31 Tribe Second MSJ

33-1 US Second MSJ

35 Tribe Reply

37 US Reply

40 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Swinomish Loses Contract Support Costs Dispute with Indian Health Service

Here are the materials in Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Azar (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

21-2 Swinomish MSJ

27 US Cross-Motion

29 Swinomish Reply

32 US Reply

36 DCT Order

An excerpt:

The question in this case is whether, when a tribe collects its own third-party revenue pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1641(d)(1), its expenditures of those funds on health care services are eligible for CSC funding from the IHS under the ISDEAA, id. §§ 5325, 5388.

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Denied in Seminole/IHS Dispute

Here are the materials in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Azar (D.D.C.):

9 Seminole MSJ

14 US Response + Cross Motion

15 Seminole Reply

17 US Reply

20 DCT Order

Complaint here.