Southcentral Foundation v. Anthc
983 F.3d 411
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background
- Section 325 (1997) created the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) as an intertribal consortium to provide statewide health services at the Alaska Native Medical Center; Southcentral Foundation (SCF) is a listed regional health entity and has a representative on ANTHC’s 15-member Board.
- In December 2014 ANTHC’s Board (13–2) amended its bylaws to create a five-member Executive Committee authorized to exercise the Board’s authority, with Executive Committee actions not subject to ratification by the full Board.
- The Executive Committee approved lucrative employment contracts for ANTHC’s chair (Teuber) and CEO; SCF’s Board representative was excluded from the Executive Committee and not promptly informed of meeting details or contract terms.
- In 2016–2017 ANTHC adopted a Code of Conduct and a Disclosure Policy that, according to SCF, restricted Directors’ ability to share confidential information with their designating tribal entities.
- SCF sued for declaratory relief, alleging the Executive Committee and the informational restrictions violated Section 325; the district court dismissed for lack of Article III standing; the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge creation/delegation to Executive Committee | Creation and delegation infringed SCF’s statutory governance right to have its representative vote on a 15‑member Board | Section 325 limits governance to individual Directors; participation language refers only to health‑service provision, not governance | SCF has Article III standing; alleged deprivation of voting/governance is concrete and particularized |
| Standing to challenge informational restrictions (Code/Disclosure Policy) | Limits on information to SCF’s Director deprived SCF of information necessary to exercise its statutory governance rights | Section 325 does not create an express informational right, so no informational‑injury standing | SCF has Article III standing; informational injury tied to statutory governance is concrete and particularized |
| Mootness / voluntary cessation (post‑amendment bylaws) | N/A (SCF seeks relief) | ANTHC amended bylaws in 2017 to require ratification, so violation unlikely to recur | Amendment alone does not meet ANTHC’s heavy burden to show the conduct cannot reasonably recur; case is not moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (injury in fact must be concrete and particularized)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (voluntary cessation and mootness standard)
- Wilderness Society, Inc. v. Rey, 622 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2010) (limits on informational‑injury standing under statutory scheme)
- Lapidus v. Hecht, 232 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2000) (voting rights can support direct standing)
- United States v. Gallegos, 613 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2010) (statutory interpretation starts with text)
- Bd. of Trs. of the Glazing Health & Welfare Tr. v. Chambers, 941 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2019) (private parties’ voluntary cessation not entitled to presumption of good faith)