Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla & Cupeño Indians v. Jewell
729 F.3d 1025
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Los Coyotes Band (California, Public Law 280 state) sought a 638 self-determination contract under ISDA to fund expanded law enforcement on its reservation; requested $746,110.00.
- BIA/OJS denied the application under 25 U.S.C. § 450f(a)(2)(D) because the BIA spends zero funds on law enforcement in California (the “applicable funding level” = 0).
- Tribe pursued administrative informal conference; mediator recommended BIA change its funding practice; BIA treated the recommendation as nonbinding.
- Tribe sued in district court alleging ISDA violation (imposing a nonregulatory condition), APA violations (failure to promulgate / arbitrary agency action), and Fifth Amendment equal protection violation; district court granted summary judgment for Tribe on ISDA, two APA claims, and equal protection.
- Ninth Circuit reversed: held ISDA did not entitle Tribe to funds for a program the BIA did not already fund; allocation of lump-sum appropriations is committed to agency discretion and not reviewable under the APA; equal protection challenge failed under rational-basis review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ISDA required Secretary to award contract funding for a law enforcement program not previously funded by BIA | Tribe: ISDA permits tribes to obtain contracts for programs "otherwise provided" and does not require the program to be currently funded; denial is impermissible | Sec: ISDA limits contract funding to the "applicable funding level" (what BIA would have otherwise spent); where no BIA program exists, applicable level is zero, so denial proper | Held: Denial proper. ISDA only transfers existing BIA program funding; it does not create new BIA-funded programs. |
| Whether BIA’s prioritization/funding practice violated the ISDA as an unlawful nonregulatory condition (Ramah-based claim) | Tribe: BIA policy of not funding law enforcement in Public Law 280 states imposes an impermissible requirement and frustrates ISDA rights | Sec: Funding discretion and ISDA statutory scheme do not create a legal mandate requiring funding; Ramah is distinguishable because it involved mandatory CSF statutory rules for existing contracts | Held: Tribe’s reliance on Ramah fails; ISDA contains no statutory rule requiring BIA to fund new law enforcement programs. |
| Whether the APA permits review of BIA’s funding allocation or unwritten policy (notice-and-comment / arbitrary and capricious) | Tribe: BIA’s unwritten policy should have been promulgated or is arbitrary and thus reviewable | Sec: Allocation of lump-sum appropriations and program-funding priorities are committed to agency discretion (Lincoln) and general guidance/policy is exempt from notice-and-comment | Held: APA claims fail. Funding allocation is committed to agency discretion and any general policy is a non-promulgable statement of policy. |
| Whether the BIA’s funding practice violated equal protection (Fifth Amendment) | Tribe: Denying BIA funding to tribes in Public Law 280 states (while funding some tribes elsewhere) constitutes unequal treatment | Sec: Distinction between Public Law 280 and non-280 states is rational (state law enforcement availability); exceptions (e.g., border tribes) have rational bases | Held: Equal protection claim fails under rational-basis review; funding distinctions are rational. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (agency allocation of lump-sum appropriations is committed to agency discretion)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (agency decisions not to act are presumptively unreviewable)
- Ramah Navajo School Board v. Babbitt, 87 F.3d 1338 (D.C. Cir.) (limits on agency action under ISDA where a statutory funding formula supplies meaningful law to apply)
- Serrato v. Clark, 486 F.3d 560 (9th Cir.) (applying Lincoln to bar review of discretionary funding allocations)
- Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (tribal lack of criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians)