Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States
136 S. Ct. 750
| SCOTUS | 2016Background
- Menominee Indian Tribe contracted with IHS under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA) to operate IHS programs and sought reimbursement for contract support costs.
- The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) requires contractors to present each claim to a contracting officer and contains a 6-year presentment limitation.
- Tribe submitted claims for contract years 1995–2004 in 2005; the contracting officer denied portions as time-barred under the CDA for 1996–1998 claims.
- Tribe argued tolling for the 707 days a putative Cherokee Nation class action was pending and alternatively sought equitable tolling; lower courts denied class-action tolling and then equitable tolling.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed denial of equitable tolling, holding the Tribe’s delay was not caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond its control; Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split.
- Supreme Court affirmed: equitable tolling requires diligence plus extraordinary circumstances that are both extraordinary and beyond the litigant’s control; Tribe’s reliance on a putative class, futility concerns, and litigation costs were not extraordinary or beyond its control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling applies to Tribe's untimely presentment under CDA | Tribe: toll the 6-year presentment period for 707 days while a putative class was pending; alternatively, equitable tolling should apply because Tribe diligently pursued rights and faced extraordinary circumstances | Gov't: no tolling; Tribe had unilateral ability to present claims and its delays were due to mistakes or tactical choices, not external obstacles | No equitable tolling: Tribe failed to show extraordinary circumstances beyond its control |
| Proper test for equitable tolling | Tribe: treat diligence and extraordinary circumstances as interconnected factors in a flexible equitable test | Gov't: apply Holland test as two distinct elements (diligence and extraordinary circumstances beyond control) | Court reaffirmed Holland: two distinct elements must be satisfied |
| Whether reliance on parallel class actions can qualify as an extraordinary circumstance | Tribe: reasonably relied on putative class litigation (Ramah/Cherokee trends) and believed presentment unnecessary or futile | Gov't: reliance was a mistake of law/tactics and not an external obstacle preventing presentment | Reliance on putative class was not an extraordinary circumstance beyond Tribe’s control |
| Whether the federal–tribal trust relationship alters tolling analysis | Tribe: special relationship and ISDA’s purpose argue for more forgiving tolling | Gov't: statutory deadline is clear; trust relationship cannot override statute | Trust relationship does not override clear statutory time limits; tolling denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (equitable tolling elements are distinct)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (application of extraordinary-circumstances requirement)
- American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (class-action tolling principles)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (excusable neglect and tolling principles)
- Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Leavitt, 543 U.S. 631 (ISDA-related merits decision referenced)
- United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162 (statutory governance of federal–tribal obligations)
- Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 (absence of prejudice not an independent basis for tolling)