Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe

What happened

This is a funding case, not a land case. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA) lets a tribe contract with the Indian Health Service (IHS) to take over healthcare programs that IHS would otherwise run for the tribe. IHS must turn over the money it would have spent, called the "Secretarial amount," plus an additional sum for "contract support costs," which are administrative and overhead costs the tribe takes on.

Like IHS, a contracting tribe can also collect revenue from third-party payers such as Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers. That money is called "program income." The San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Northern Arapaho Tribe sued for breach of contract. They said IHS had not paid the contract support costs they incurred providing healthcare funded by program income. The Ninth and Tenth Circuits sided with the tribes.

The Supreme Court affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts. It held that ISDA requires IHS to pay those costs. Without payment, the Court said, a tribe would have to divert program income or pay out of its own pocket, and so would face "a penalty for pursuing self-determination." Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito and Barrett.

The decision concerns how ISDA contracts are paid for. It does not address treaty or land rights.

Good to know. The case was decided together with Becerra v. Northern Arapaho Tribe.

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error