Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Salazar
644 F.3d 1054
10th Cir.2011Background
- ISDA enables tribes to contract for program planning, execution, and admin; CSCs cover indirect/administrative costs not funded if self-determination funds are insufficient.
- Congress caps CSC funding since 1994; annual appropriations are not always enough to cover all contracts across 600+ tribes.
- Self-determination contracts provide funding “subject to availability of appropriations,” but contracts mandate liberal construction in tribes’ favor.
- The government allocated CSC funds pro rata or otherwise under caps, triggering disputes over whether individual contractors must be paid in full.
- Ramah and others sued under the Contract Disputes Act seeking unpaid CSCs; district court granted summary judgment for the government, reversing on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of 'subject to the availability of appropriations' | Tribe contends availability refers to funds for each contract. | Government contends availability is the total appropriations for all CSCs. | Interpretation favors tribes; availability to fund an individual contract exists if funds are legally available. |
| Liability when funds are insufficient | If unrestricted funds exist for a contract, government must pay full CSCs. | Under caps, government may shortfall without liability. | Government liable for unpaid CSCs if if funds were legally available for individual contracts per Cherokee. |
| Contract authority to bind government | ISDA grants binding obligation to pay full CSCs regardless of appropriations. | No contract authority to bind without sufficient appropriations. | Secretary lacks general contract authority to bind unless funds are available; liability still respects appropriations framework. |
| Relationship to Ferris/Dougherty rule | Ferris/Dougherty support full payment from multi-contractor appropriation. | Ferris/Dougherty apply as to line-item/multi-contract contexts; not here. | Ferris/Dougherty doctrine supports tribes; multi-contractor lump-sum allocations do not bar individual contract payment when funds exist. |
| Remedy and funds source (Judgment Fund) | Judgment Fund may be appropriate to satisfy contract claims. | Appropriations constraints restrict payment; Judgment Fund as fallback. | Judgment Fund can be used to satisfy judgments when Congress breached ISDA funding promises. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherokee Nation v. Leavitt, 543 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2005) (unrestricted funds entitlement; availability language does not bar payment when funds are adequate for contracts)
- Ferris v. United States, 27 Ct.Cl. 542 (Ct. Cl. 1892) (contractor not charged with government misallocation; funds are thankfully available for individual contracts)
- Dougherty v. United States, 18 Ct.Cl. 496 (Ct. Cl. 1883) (multi-contract appropriations; insufficiency does not defeat rights of other parties)
- Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1993) (unfettered agency discretion in distributing lump-sum appropriations)
- Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co. v. United States, 622 F.2d 539 (Ct.Cl. 1980) (contingency language interpreted via context and statutory framework)