Term: 2015
Docket: 14-510
Menominee Indian Tribe Of Wisconsin v. United States
- Pro
14-510 MENOMINEE INDIAN TRIBE OF WI V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 764 F.3d 51 LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: Whether the D. C. Circuit misapplied this Court’s Holland decision when it ruled that the Tribe was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for filing of Indian Self-Determination Act claims under the Contract Disputes Act? CERT. GRANTED 6/30/2015 QUESTION PRESENTED: Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010), established that equitable tolling of a non-- jurisdictional statute of limitations is warranted where a party shows (1) diligence in pursuing its rights, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in the way of timely filing. In its decision below, the D.C. Circuit applied the Holland test and concluded that the Menominee Indian Tribe did not establish the necessary grounds for obtaining equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for filing claims against the Indian Health Service ("IHS") under the Contract Disputes Act ("CDA") for unpaid contract support costs ("CSC"). As acknowledged in its opinion, the D.C. Circuit's application of Holland and its ultimate ruling was in direct conflict with the Federal Circuit's opinion in Arctic Slope Native Ass'n, Ltd. v. Sebelius, 699 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Pet. App. 75a-97a), which found that the plaintiff tribal organization in that case was entitled to equitable tolling of the CDA statute of limitations under materially similar facts. The Federal Circuit's opinion and the D.C. Circuit's opinion below are in irreconcilable conflict with one another. Unless and until reconciled by this Court, the conflict will almost certainly undermine fairness and consistency in the administration of justice in the wide array of civil and criminal contexts in which equitable tolling arises. Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit's decision denies the Menominee Indian Tribe the right to full recovery under its Indian Self- Determination contract based on a narrow and inflexible application of Holland, even as other tribes and tribal organizations may vindicate that right by filing their claims in a different forum. The Tribe therefore seeks this Court’s review of the following critical question: Whether the D.C. Circuit misapplied this Court’s Holland decision when it ruled - in direct conflict with a holding of the Federal Circuit on materially similar facts - that the Tribe did not face an "extraordinary circumstance" warranting equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for filing of Indian Self-Determination Act claims under the Contract Disputes Act? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-5217
In the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States case in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled against the tribe's claim for cost compensation from federal agencies under self-determination contracts. The tribe had argued that it was entitled to recover costs incurred between 1996 and 2004 due to contract support with two federal agencies - Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs. However, they failed to file their claims within six years as required by law because they believed a class-action lawsuit filed by another tribe covered them too. The court held that equitable tolling did not apply here since there were no extraordinary circumstances preventing timely filing nor did the government induce them into missing the deadline.
In the dissenting opinion for Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision was too strict in its interpretation of the "equitable tolling" doctrine and failed to consider the unique circumstances faced by Native American tribes. She contended that it was unreasonable to expect a small tribe like Menominee with limited resources to file individual claims for hundreds or potentially thousands of members within a two-year period. Furthermore, she noted that there were significant legal uncertainties surrounding whether such claims could be filed collectively rather than individually at all during this time frame. Therefore, according to her view, these factors should have been considered as extraordinary circumstances justifying equitable tolling.
