Here are the materials in Liberty v. Jewell (D. Mont.):
ISDEAA
Payment of Contract Support Costs is Mandatory – Why Isn’t the Funding?
Attorneys from Hobbs Strauss have prepared a proposal to enact permanent mandatory funding appropriations for contract support costs under the ISDEAA. The proposal is here:
White Paper and Proposal – Final
They also have an editorial in the ICT on this matter.
Ninth Circuit Holds Interior Does Not Violate ISDEAA When Denying Law Enforcement Funds to PL280 Tribes
Here is the opinion in Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla & Capuño v. Jewell.
From the court’s syllabus:
The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians, and the court’s finding that the U.S. Secretary of the Interior violated the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection when the Secretary declined to enter into a self-determination contract with the Tribe to fund law enforcement on the Los Coyotes Reservation.
The panel held that the Secretary properly rejected the Tribe’s contract request. The panel also held that the Tribe’s reliance on the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act was misplaced because the Act allows the Tribe to take control of existing programs and obtain funds that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) would otherwise spend on those programs, but here there was no existing BIA program, and therefore nothing to transfer to the Tribe. The panel further held that the Administrative Procedure Act did not authorize the court to review the BIA’s allocation of law enforcement funding in Indian Country. Finally, the panel held that the BIA’s funding policy did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.
And the briefs:
Lower court materials here.
Federal Circuit Reinstates ISDEAA Suit against IHS — UPDATED with Briefs
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:
Arizona Court Holds ISDEAA Waives Tribal Immunity in State Court
An excerpt:
In this case, the GRIC officers were acting in the course and scope of their employment, but off the geographical boundaries of Indian Country. The Federal Tort Claim Act does not apply. Their activities instead fall within the intent of 25 U.S.C. § 450f(c). To the amount of GRIC liability coverage for the Defendants’ law enforcement activities off Indian Country not covered by FTCA, the GRIC has waived its Sovereign Immunity to suit in Arizona. The Court finds persuasive the U.S.A.’s Amicus Brief legal analysis. The Tribe has waived its Sovereign Immunity for the activities of the Defendant Officers in this case.
Turtle Talk 