*2 Indians, upon with founded SNEED, Cir Before KILKENNY and relationship of for trust the benefits of Judge.* Judges, cuit and dependent . these “. . and some exploited people.” times Na Seminole OPINION 286, 296, tion v. United Judge: KILKENNY, Circuit 1049, (1942). 62 S.Ct. Snyder The Act was enacted this with Appellants re- are American principle mind, programs in and its must siding Res- Indian on the accordingly. be 21, administered Neither to in Prior ervation Montana. parties the court below nor the mention participants in Trib- 1972, the were concept. Therefore, this the district (TWEP) Experience Program al Work court’s conclusions must reexamined be Indian operating Bureau of under the principle. under the Ruiz ultimately program and Affairs Welfare supervision of officials terms, appellants In literal were De- Indian Affairs Bureau of employed TWEP, contractually under Interior, Ap- appellees. partment of the but such formal should not organization party pellants’ was tribal disguise the true be allowed nature it was which a TWEP contract “gen provide the which was to per- participants agreed that the eral assistance” to the entitled Indians. program in tasks under the form certain key term, The contract itself used that compensation. monetary return part undoubtedly and the pursu- granted for TWEP were Funds “general support,” “relief,” and “in Act, Snyder 25 U.S.C. § ant to the provided the dustrial under assistance” 1972, appellants 21, were Snyder About March Act. form not be Mere must the individual letters permitted informed over to dominate substance participa- gen their TWEP office that BIA Appellants denied this area. expiration upon terminate assistance, jobs. tion would just not eral attorney Appellants’ re- the contract. court declined to The district prior granted hearing quested that a Kelly, supra, Goldberg v. be- the rule of termination, request which cause, said, appellants could find al- thereupon filed a Appellants refused. under other ternative means asking injunctive de- complaint Admittedly, BIA assistance. claratory on the matter very Goldberg the “. . . dealt with ” re- denied court The district . to live . . . 397 means which holding they were appellants, lief to the 264, at 1018. at 90 S.Ct. U.S. hearing un- process to a due not entitled spoke im- Supreme of other Court 254, 90 Kelly, U.S. 397 der v. portant involved: considerations (1970), 287, or 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d founding its the Nation’s basic “From appeal follows. This otherwise. has been to foster commitment well-being persons recognize of all outset, we At . . Public its borders. . within un programs established that assistance then, charity, assistance, special not mere Snyder are for Act der the ‘promote but a means communi of Indians and benefit Blessings Welfare, liberally and secure construed and must ties Liberty to and our Posteri- ourselves Morton, F.2d 462 Ruiz v. their governmental ty.’ interests (CA9 1972) nom. The same 818, aff’d sub 821 welfare, 199, provision Ruiz, that counsel 94 S.Ct. U.S. v. 415 Morton uninterrupted (1974); counsel as well its Rock L.Ed.2d 270 39 it; eligible to receive Lincoln, vision to those bridge 449 F.2d hearings evidentiary prin- pre-termination (CA9 1971). stands Ruiz * Gray, Judge for Central District of States District P. The William Honorable sitting by designation. California, indispensible hold, therefore, are that end.” at summary [Id. that ter-
264, 265,
1019; emphasis
90 S.Ct. at
deprived appellants
mination of TWEP
process rights
of due
added.]
which could have
by properly
been secured
conducted ev-
Court then went on to note
identiary hearing.
At such
essentially
process
balancing
including
aired,
factors could have been
involved,
recipient’s
with
*3
appellants’ eligibility
both
for the
uninterrupted assistance and the accom gram
government’s
interest
panying advantages to the national wel
terminating it.
outweighing
government’s
fare
fiscal
Reversed and remanded.
securing
administrative concerns
might
summary termination.
also
Judge
WILLIAM P.
appellants possessed
note that
the addi
(dissenting):
work,
tional
Although may very
well be that the
tips
which further
the balance in their
shabbily
Indians here concerned were
Thus,
recipi
the mere fact that
treated,
agree
I am unable to
that the
ents could
their sustenance else
obtain
particular
grant-
sought,
relief
and now
necessarily
where would not
vitiate due
by
majority,
appropriate.
ed
process requirements.
The elements
appellants were terminated from their
gainful
interruption,
employ
denial
project,
under the TWEP
ment,
consequent disruption of
not because of an administrative de-
living
their normal method of
would still
they
ineligible,
termination that
present.
but because the funds allocated to the
project had become exhausted.
No
Assuming', arguendo,
that con
appellants
contends
had
con-
controlling here,
tract
law is
the fact
right
project
stitutional
that the
be con-
that the BIA itself describes TWEP as
tinued;
so there is
no occasion for
pre
assistance in the contract
hearing in order that
the reasons for
denying
vents the
from now
might
argued.
the termination
program.
nature of the
have
Courts
Judge Battin,
generally
his
“Memorandum
refused to
the doctrine
Opinion
Order,”
And
estoppel
which this
or waiver
appeal
taken,
ending
theory
sovereign
found that “the
under a
nity.
akin
immu
effectively
TWEP
did not
lately
there has
been a
plaintiffs’ receipt
broadening
terminate the
exceptions
of ordi-
of the
to include
nary general assistance,
they
estoppel against
had
an
the United States
to do to continue
justice
play require
to receive checks in
where
and fair
it.
substantially the same
amounts was
Moser v.
United
;
indicate their desire to do
(1951)
so.” There
clearly
Lazy
was evidence to
Ranch,
such a
States v.
FC