Los Coyotes Band of Cahulla & Cupeño Indians v. Jewell

It is proper for the Secretary of the Interior to deny a self-determination contract when no federal funds have been spent on the program; the Administrative Procedure Act is not a proper way to review an agency’s decision without a statutory constraint on the agency’s discretion; and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment is not violated when there is a rational basis for the difference in treatment.

The Secretary of the Interior (the "Secretary") refused to enter into a self-determination contract with Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupño Indians ("the Tribe") to provide money for law enforcement on the Los Coyotes reservation. The district court held that the Secretary violated the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act ("ISDA"), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The ISDA was created to increase tribal administration of programs under the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA"). Using the ISDA, the BIA develops contracts where a tribe will take over as a contractor and receive the money that the BIA would have spent on a program. The Ninth Circuit rejected the Tribe’s claim that the Secretary failed to comply with the ISDA because; the Secretary is authorized to reject a contract if a tribe requests more money than the BIA is spending on the program, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 450f(a)(2)(D). In this case, the BIA was not spending any money on law enforcement for the Tribe. The Tribe argued it was wrong for the secretary to deny their request because, among other things, the definition of the contract does not contain specific language that requires the program to exist. This argument was rejected because the Secretary never cited to 25 U.S.C. §§ 450f(a)(1) and 450b(j) in justifying the denial. Precedent foreclosed the panel’s ability to use the APA to review an agency’s decision absent a statutory constraint on the agency’s discretion. The panel rejected the argument that the Secretary had violated the Equal Protection Clause because the ISDA only allocates money for self-determination contracts in the amount already spent on a program, and the BIA was not funding law enforcement for the tribe. REVERSED.