SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY v. AZAR, 406 F.Supp.3d 18

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (the Tribe) had a Title V ISDEAA self-governance Compact and a 2010–2014 Funding Agreement with IHS that provided a Secretarial amount plus negotiated contract support costs (CSC), including a negotiated indirect cost rate (31.91% for CY2010).
In CY2010 the Tribe collected $636,421 in third‑party program income (Medicare, Medicaid, private insurers) and spent those funds on health and related services; IHS did not add CSC for those expenditures and excluded them from the direct cost base used to calculate CSC.
On December 20, 2016 the Tribe submitted a certified CDA claim seeking $245,867 in additional CSC for CY2010 attributable to the Tribe’s expenditure of third‑party revenue; the contracting officer denied the claim for lack of documentation and failure to show eligibility under 25 U.S.C. § 5325(a).
The Tribe sued under the Contract Disputes Act (as authorized by ISDEAA § 5331) and sought a declaratory judgment that expenditures of tribal third‑party revenue on health services are eligible for CSC.
The parties filed cross‑motions for summary judgment. The Court treated the dispute as purely legal and found no genuine issue of material fact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject‑matter jurisdiction / CDA timeliness	Tribe filed a certified claim to the contracting officer and may sue; claim is within CDA scheme	IHS suggested statute‑of‑limitations might bar claims	Court has jurisdiction; IHS did not preserve a limitations defense to bar this claim
Whether expenditures of tribe‑collected third‑party revenue are included in the Secretarial amount or the Federal program for CSC calculation under ISDEAA (25 U.S.C. §§ 5325, 5388)	Tribe: § 5388(j) treats program income as supplemental but still effectively part of resources for the Federal program; § 5325(a) should be read to permit CSC on expenditures of third‑party funds, enlarging the direct cost base	IHS: § 5388(j) expressly treats third‑party income as supplemental and separate from amounts negotiated in the funding agreement; § 5325(a) refers to Secretary‑provided funds and does not include tribe‑earned third‑party revenue; awarding CSC on third‑party expenditures would duplicate reimbursements and contradict statutory structure	Court: Grants summary judgment to IHS. § 5388(j) makes third‑party revenue supplemental and separate from funding‑agreement amounts; § 5325(a) does not encompass tribe‑collected third‑party revenue for CSC and paying CSC on those expenditures would cause prohibited duplication

Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438 (statutory‑construction starts with text; stop if unambiguous)
Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081 (D.C. Cir.) (agency interpretation under ISDEAA gets careful consideration but no deference)
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 567 U.S. 182 (agency must show its reading is clearly required by statutory language)
Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (specific governs general in statutory construction)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 750 (CDA claim exhaustion and related CDA principles)
Bullcreek v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 359 F.3d 536 (D.C. Cir.) (statutory structure relevant to meaning)