Court case

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States

The Court unanimously refused to extend the claims deadline for the Menominee Tribe while a related class action by other tribes was pending.

Citation
577 U.S. 250 (2016)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
2016
Nations
Menominee Nation
Treaty at issue
none
Effect on land rights
procedural

What happened

This is a money-claims case, not a land case. Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA), the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin contracted with the Indian Health Service (IHS) to operate what would otherwise have been a federal program and to receive an amount equal to what the government would have spent, including reimbursement of contract support costs.

Tribal contractors had repeatedly complained that the federal government had not fully honored its obligation to pay those costs. The first relevant lawsuit was a class action filed in 1990 by the Ramah Navajo Chapter, in which the trial court held that tribes could take part in the class without first presenting claims to a contracting officer. A second suit, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States, was filed against IHS in 1999.

The Menominee Tribe then presented its own claims to IHS under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. The contracting officer denied some of them because they were not presented within the Act's time limit. The Tribe argued that the limit should be tolled for the nearly two years in which a putative class action by other tribes was pending.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Alito for a unanimous Court, held that equitable tolling does not apply. A litigant must show both that he has been pursuing his rights diligently and that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. The Court called these "elements," not factors in a unitary test, and found no extraordinary circumstance beyond the Tribe's control.

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

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. Equitable tolling does not apply to the presentment of petitioner's claims.Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, 577 U.S. 250 (2016) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. delivered the opinion for a unanimous CourtMenominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, 577 U.S. 250 (2016) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. Tribal contractors have repeatedly complained that the Federal Government has not fully honored its obligations to pay contract support costs.Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, 577 U.S. 250 (2016) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)

Research notes. The Court's account describes three related lawsuits; only the first two are summarized here. The opinion's statements about what the Tribe 'argued' are the Court's. Our data lists no treaty and no land effect, consistent with the opinion.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Working with these nations

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Connections

Links marked “suggested” were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Doctrine applied 2

Policy era 1

Nations named 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-510/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
Equitable tolling of a statute of limitations requires both diligence and an extraordinary circumstance beyond the litigant's control; the Tribe's contract-support-cost claims were not tolled.
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record