Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Sebelius
70 F. Supp. 3d 534, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142386 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), the Secretary of Health and Human Services must approve a valid tribal self-determination contract proposal for an ongoing program unless one of the statutory declination criteria is met at the time the proposal is received; the Secretary cannot unilaterally discontinue the program after receiving the proposal to create a basis for denial.
Facts:
- The Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes reside on the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, a small, remote community on the border between Nevada and Oregon.
- Since the 1970s, the Indian Health Service (IHS) has operated a health clinic at Fort McDermitt for Indians living in the area.
- Since 1993, IHS had also operated an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) program for the Fort McDermitt area.
- Beginning in 2010, the cost of operating the EMS program increased unexpectedly due to an IRS determination requiring IHS to classify personnel working for the program as employees rather than independent contractors.
- On January 13, 2013, the Fort McDermitt Tribe, by resolution, designated the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe as its "tribal organization" under the ISDEAA to contract for an EMS program within the Fort McDermitt area.
- The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe submitted a contract proposal to IHS on June 21, 2013, which IHS received on July 8, 2013, seeking $502,611 for operating costs plus start-up and indirect costs for the EMS program.
- On August 15, 2013, Humboldt General Hospital, which had acted as the base hospital for the Fort McDermitt EMS program, notified IHS that it would no longer serve in that capacity.
- IHS suspended operations of the Fort McDermitt EMS program four days later, on August 19, 2013.
Procedural Posture:
- The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe brought suit under the ISDEAA against the Indian Health Service (IHS) and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Sylvia Burwell) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe moved for summary judgment.
- The Secretary moved for summary judgment and, alternatively, to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7).
- The District Court held a hearing on the parties' motions on August 28, 2014.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services to decline a tribal organization's proposal for an ongoing program by discontinuing the program after the proposal's submission, thereby rendering the "applicable funding level" zero?
Opinions:
Majority - Christopher R. Cooper
No, the Secretary lacked authority under the ISDEAA to deny the Pyramid Lake Tribe's proposal by discontinuing the EMS program after its submission. The court held that the ISDEAA requires the Secretary to accept a valid self-determination contract proposal for an ongoing program unless one of the five specific declination criteria is met. The "applicable funding level" for a contract proposal, relevant to the criterion that proposed funds not exceed the applicable level, must be determined at the date the agency receives the tribe's proposal, not at the later date of the declination. To allow the Secretary to cancel a program post-proposal receipt would circumvent the Act's carefully constructed and limited declination criteria. The court distinguished Lincoln v. Vigil, which concerned general agency discretion to discontinue programs but did not involve an ISDEAA proposal, and Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla & Cupeno Indians v. Jewell, where the agency was not operating the program at the time the tribe submitted its proposal. The court also rejected the Secretary's alternative justifications—that third-party revenues were not a "program, function, service, or activity" or that the proposal exceeded a "tribal share" allotment or lacked a base hospital agreement—because these were either inconsistent with the Act or were impermissible post-hoc justifications not provided in the original written declination notice, as required by the ISDEAA. Given the ISDEAA's specific provision for injunctive and mandamus relief, the Tribe was not required to demonstrate traditional equitable grounds. However, the court exercised its equitable discretion to order the Secretary to negotiate the funding level with the Tribe, rather than mandating the exact amount proposed, acknowledging that the prior year's expenditure might have been aberrant.
Analysis:
This case significantly strengthens tribal self-governance under the ISDEAA by clarifying that federal agencies cannot create post-hoc reasons or retroactively discontinue programs to avoid tribal self-determination contracts. It underscores the importance of assessing the "applicable funding level" at the time a proposal is received, preventing agencies from unilaterally undermining the Act's purpose. The decision also reinforces the ISDEAA's requirement for agencies to provide clear, statutorily valid grounds for declination at the time of denial, limiting agency discretion and enhancing accountability. This ruling provides greater stability and predictability for tribes seeking to assume responsibility for federal programs, fostering the Act's goal of promoting Indian self-determination.
