The Chippewa Cree Tribe v. Usdoi, 900 F.3d 1152

The Chippewa Cree Tribe received over $27 million in ARRA funds for a water pipeline; tribe agreements incorporated ARRA whistleblower procedures.
Ken St. Marks, a tribal member and construction-company owner, reported suspected misuse of ARRA funds to the Department of the Interior and later was elected Committee Chairman; he was removed by the Committee about six months after his disclosure.
St. Marks filed a whistleblower complaint; the Interior Inspector General (IG) investigated and produced a report but did not initially provide the Tribe a copy; the Department of the Interior issued a preliminary order (with the IG report attached) and later a final order finding prohibited reprisal.
The Department awarded St. Marks approximately $650,000 (back pay, front pay, travel, fees) but declined reinstatement to avoid intruding on tribal self-governance.
The Tribe petitioned for review arguing (1) St. Marks is not an ARRA "employee," (2) tribal sovereignty was violated, (3) procedural due process required a hearing, (4) the reprisal finding was unsupported, and (5) monetary relief was miscalculated.
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition, holding St. Marks qualifies as an ARRA employee, the Tribe consented to ARRA procedures by accepting funds, the agency’s procedural error (late delivery of the IG report) was harmless, and the Department’s factual and remedial determinations were reasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether St. Marks is an "employee" under ARRA	St. Marks was an elected official, not an employee	ARRA defines "employee" as any individual who performs services on behalf of an employer; St. Marks performed such services and was paid	Held: St. Marks is an ARRA employee
Whether ARRA enforcement infringes tribal sovereignty	Tribe: agency order intrudes on self-governance; Congress did not intend that result	Dept: ARRA applies to tribes and tribe consented by accepting funds and contractual terms	Held: No sovereign-bar; tribe consented by accepting funds and agreements
Whether Tribe was denied procedural due process (right to hearing/cross-examination)	Tribe: entitled to a hearing with cross-examination before adverse finding	Dept: ARRA’s statutory procedures (no hearing) govern; tribe agreed to those procedures in exchange for funds	Held: No constitutional right to additional procedures; statutory process controls; any statutory IG-report timing error was harmless
Whether Department’s finding of prohibited reprisal and monetary award were arbitrary	Tribe: removal was for neglect/misconduct; proffered reasons show non-retaliatory basis; pay calculation flawed	Dept: evidence showed disclosure was known and temporally connected; Tribe offered unsubstantiated, untimely, or pretextual reasons; pay figure was undisputed below	Held: Dept’s conclusion rational under APA; monetary award affirmed (tribe forfeited new pay-figure argument)

BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States, 541 U.S. 176 (statutory-text inquiry governs definition)
Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 (titles do not control "employee" status)
Darden v. United States, 503 U.S. 318 (use of common-law test when statute unhelpful)
Meghrig v. KFC W., Inc., 516 U.S. 479 (compare statutes to infer congressional intent)
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (Congress can limit tribal powers)
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 134 S. Ct. 2024 (limits on tribal sovereignty doctrines)
Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (Congress may condition funding to prevent graft)
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (limitations on conditional spending power)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (spending conditions viewed as contract)
Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (ancillary power to ensure proper use of federal funds)
Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968 (temporal gaps can support retaliation inference)
Allen v. Iranon, 283 F.3d 1070 (months-long gaps may still support retaliatory inference)
Business Communications, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Education, 739 F.3d 374 (Eighth Circuit view on due process in ARRA proceedings)