Navajo Nation v. United States Department of the Interior
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5759
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Navajo Nation hand-delivered a proposed annual ISDEAA funding agreement to a BIA regional office on Oct 4, 2013, during a partial federal government shutdown.
- An on-site BIA specialist (Slim) accepted the proposal for intra-office routing, but the BIA asserts the proposal was not “received” by the Secretary until Oct 17, 2013, when furloughed officials returned.
- BIA notified the Nation (Oct 21) that it considered receipt to be Oct 17 and that the 90-day review period would end Jan 15, 2014; the Nation did not respond.
- BIA issued a partial declination on Jan 15, 2014 (authorizing ~$1.3M vs. the Nation’s ~$17M request); the Nation argued the 90-day period expired Jan 2, 2014 (90 days after Oct 4), so the proposal was deemed approved.
- District court granted summary judgment to DOI based on equitable estoppel (Nation’s silence); D.C. Circuit reversed, holding the proposal was received Oct 4 and equitable doctrines did not excuse DOI’s delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposal was "received" on Oct 4 (hand-delivery) or Oct 17 (post-shutdown) | Receipt occurred Oct 4 when Slim accepted the document at the regional office | Receipt did not occur until authorized employees returned Oct 17 because Anti-Deficiency Act limited who could accept | Court: Receipt occurred on Oct 4; Slim’s acceptance constituted receipt and Agency is bound by that receipt even if Anti-Deficiency Act made the act improper |
| Whether equitable estoppel bars Nation from challenging timeliness after it remained silent to BIA letters | Silence did not waive the Nation’s statutory right; estoppel inappropriate against sovereign and where government owes fiduciary duties to tribes | Nation’s silence in face of BIA’s deadline statements should estop challenge | Court: Equitable estoppel does not apply; government should not invoke estoppel against a tribe here |
| Whether equitable tolling applies for shutdown period | No tolling; deadline ran from actual agency receipt | Tolling should excuse days lost to shutdown | Court: Equitable tolling inappropriate here—shutdown was foreseeable and BIA had opportunity to act after reopening |
| If proposal deemed approved, whether award can exceed Secretarial (floor) amount | Deemed-approval triggers adding the full proposed funds to the contract; Secretarial amount is a floor, not a ceiling | Secretary may limit award to the applicable Secretarial funding level | Court: Rejected government’s attempt to convert statutory funding floor into a ceiling; tribes can receive amounts above the Secretarial amount upon approval |
Key Cases Cited
- Proctor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 675 F.2d 308 (D.C. Cir.) (district court may be bypassed to reach unresolved legal question on appeal)
- Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1976) (standards for appellate consideration of issues not reached below)
- Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 541 U.S. 246 (U.S. 2004) (interpretation begins with ordinary meaning of statutory text)
- Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 567 U.S. 182 (U.S. 2012) (Anti-Deficiency Act does not relieve government of obligations to third parties who relied on its actions)
- Yurok Tribe v. United States Dep't of Interior, 785 F.3d 1405 (Fed. Cir.) (ISDEAA Secretarial amount sets a funding floor, not an immutable ceiling)
- Menominee Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 750 (U.S. 2016) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances)