Arctic Slope Native Ass'n, Ltd. v. Sebelius
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25512
| Fed. Cir. | 2010Background
- ASNA sued the Secretary for failure to pay contract support costs shortfalls for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 under ISDA and the contracts.
- The Secretary argued funding was limited by a statutory cap not to exceed certain amounts, making payments depend on appropriations.
- Prior decisions (Cherokee II, Cherokee I) held committee language cannot create binding caps; but statutory caps can bind when express.
- For 1999 and 2000, Congress enacted explicit not-to-exceed caps: $203,781,000 and $228,781,000 respectively for contract support costs.
- ASNA’s claims sought payment of shortfalls (around $2.0M for 1999 and $0.6M for 2000) beyond the annual funding allocated.
- The Board granted summary judgment for the Secretary; the Federal Circuit affirming held the caps limited payment to the appropriated amounts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does not-to-exceed cap impose a statutory funding limit? | ASNA argues not-to-exceed caps bind funding and limit liability. | Secretary contends cap limits payments beyond appropriated amounts. | Yes, cap binds the Secretary to the appropriated amounts. |
| Is Ferris v. United States applicable where there is a statutory cap and no reallocation from other funds? | Ferris controls; a general appropriation can fund a single contract despite overall shortfall. | Ferris is inapplicable when a statutory cap and lack of reallocation exist. | Ferris inapplicable; cap confines obligation to appropriated funds. |
| Does availability language override the statutory cap when funds are insufficient to cover all tribes? | Subject-to-appropriation language should not defeat statutory cap if unrestricted funds exist. | Availability language allows reallocations to meet contractual obligations within the cap. | Statutory cap plus availability language limits payments to the capped amount. |
| Did the Secretary breach by not seeking additional appropriations beyond the cap? | The Secretary entered contracts and should have sought funds to pay them in full. | Congress chose a cap; failure to obtain more funds is not a breach. | No breach; reliance on cap and funding decisions rests with Congress. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherokee II, 543 U.S. 631 (2005) (affirms that statutory caps can bind funding even with availability language)
- Cherokee I, 334 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (rejects committee-report-based caps; discusses availability and reallocation)
- Oglala Sioux, 194 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (not-to-exceed language imposes statutory cap; funding limited by appropriation)
- Ferris v. United States, 27 Ct.Cl. 542 (1892) (contractor not charged with knowledge of appropriation administration; Ferris rule evaluated)
- Sutton v. United States, 256 U.S. 575 (1921) (notice of limitation on appropriations for specific projects)
- Ramah Navajo School Bd. v. Babbitt, 87 F.3d 1338 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (allocations and statutory objectives govern funding decisions)