Navajo Nation v. Azar
292 F. Supp. 3d 508
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- The Navajo Nation operates Head Start/Early Head Start programs funded principally by an HHS/ACF grant historically about $23,075,043 annually; fiscal years run Mar 1–Feb 28/29 and renewal applications are due Dec 1.
- Under the Head Start Act, HHS may reduce grants for chronically under-enrolled programs after semiannual review, remediation plans, and a 12‑month failure to reach 97% enrollment.
- HHS determined Navajo Head Start was chronically under-enrolled, based on monthly self-reports, and notified the Nation in Sept–Dec 2017 that fiscal year 2018 funding would be reduced to $15,766,194 (funded enrollment 1,396 vs. previous 2,068).
- The Navajo Nation filed suit Feb 22, 2018 alleging HHS failed to promulgate appeal procedures required by 42 U.S.C. § 9841(a)(3) and violated the APA by reducing the grant without required procedures; it simultaneously moved for a preliminary injunction to block the reduction.
- HHS opposed; the court considered irreparable-harm and preliminary injunction standards and found (contrary to Navajo) that at least $15.8 million would be available Mar 1, 2018, that carryover and conditional restoration funds were available, and that reported enrollment supported HHS’s funded level.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Navajo is likely to succeed on merits that HHS must promulgate appeal regulations under the Head Start Act and therefore HHS’s reduction was unlawful | HHS violated 42 U.S.C. § 9841(a)(3) and the APA by reducing funding without established appeal procedures | HHS followed statutory under-enrollment procedures; funding adjustment was lawful and HHS provided required notices and remediation process | Court did not decide merits; focus was on injunctive relief and expedited merits schedule ordered |
| Whether Navajo will suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction | Loss of access to services for ~672 children, layoffs (~147 employees), closure of facilities, imminent harm beginning Mar 1 | Reported enrollment historically lower than funded levels; at least $15.8M will be available Mar 1 plus carryover and conditional restoration funds; harms are economic and remediable | Denied preliminary injunction: Navajo failed to show certain, imminent, irreparable harm |
| Whether economic losses here are irreparable such that extraordinary equitable relief is warranted | Funding shortfall is immediate and will force layoffs/closures that cannot be remedied later | Economic loss is compensable; carryover and restoration options reduce immediacy; litigation can provide relief | Economic harm held not irreparable; ordinary litigation remedies sufficient |
| Whether expedited relief was required before fiscal year start | Urgent because budget year begins Mar 1 and funding changes would trigger immediate program disruptions | HHS and court proposed expedited schedule; alleged disruptions were not immediate and could be mitigated while merits are resolved | Court denied injunction but ordered parties to propose expedited merits schedule |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions requires likely success and irreparable harm)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (equities/practical considerations merge when government is opposing party)
- Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (irreparable harm is central to injunctive relief; economic loss alone insufficient)
- Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974) (equitable relief requires irreparable injury; injunctive standard principles)
- Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (economic injury alone typically does not justify extraordinary injunctive relief)