Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • (Slip Opinion)              OCTOBER TERM, 2015                                       1
    Syllabus
    NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
    being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
    The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
    prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
    See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 
    200 U.S. 321
    , 337.
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    Syllabus
    MENOMINEE INDIAN TRIBE OF WISCONSIN v.
    UNITED STATES ET AL.
    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
    THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    No. 14–510.      Argued December 1, 2015—Decided January 25, 2016
    Pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
    Act (ISDA), petitioner Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin con-
    tracted with the Indian Health Service (IHS) to operate what would
    otherwise have been a federal program and to receive an amount of
    money equal to what the Government would have spent on operating
    the program itself, including reimbursement for reasonable contract
    support costs. 
    25 U.S. C
    . §§450f, 450j–1(a). After other tribal enti-
    ties successfully litigated complaints against the Federal Govern-
    ment for failing to honor its obligation to pay contract support costs,
    the Menominee Tribe presented its own contract support claims to
    the IHS in accordance with the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA),
    which requires contractors to present each claim to a contracting of-
    ficer for decision, 
    41 U.S. C
    . §7103(a)(1). The contracting officer de-
    nied some of the Tribe’s claims because they were not presented with-
    in the CDA’s 6-year limitations period. See §7103(a)(4)(A).
    The Tribe challenged the denials in Federal District Court, arguing
    that the limitations period should be tolled for the nearly two years
    in which a putative class action, brought by tribes with parallel com-
    plaints, was pending. As relevant here, the District Court eventually
    denied the Tribe’s equitable-tolling claim, and the Court of Appeals
    affirmed, holding that no extraordinary circumstances beyond the
    Tribe’s control caused the delay.
    Held: Equitable tolling does not apply to the presentment of petitioner’s
    claims. Pp. 5–9.
    (a) To be entitled to equitable tolling of a statute of limitations, a
    litigant must establish “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights dili-
    gently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his
    2          MENOMINEE TRIBE OF WIS. v. UNITED STATES
    Syllabus
    way and prevented timely filing.” Holland v. Florida, 
    560 U.S. 631
    ,
    649. The Tribe argues that diligence and extraordinary circumstanc-
    es should be considered together as factors in a unitary test, and it
    faults the Court of Appeals for declining to consider the Tribe’s dili-
    gence in connection with its finding that no extraordinary circum-
    stances existed. But this Court has expressly characterized these two
    components as “elements,” not merely factors of indeterminate or
    commensurable weight, Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 
    544 U.S. 408
    , 418, and
    has treated them as such in practice, see Lawrence v. Florida, 
    549 U.S. 327
    , 336–337. The Tribe also objects to the Court of Appeals’
    interpretation of the “extraordinary circumstances” prong as requir-
    ing the showing of an “external obstacle” to timely filing. This Court
    reaffirms that this prong is met only where the circumstances that
    caused a litigant’s delay are both extraordinary and beyond its con-
    trol. Pp. 5–7.
    (b) None of the Tribe’s excuses satisfy the “extraordinary circum-
    stances” prong of the test. The Tribe had unilateral authority to pre-
    sent its claims in a timely manner. Its claimed obstacles, namely, a
    mistaken reliance on a putative class action and a belief that pre-
    sentment was futile, were not outside the Tribe’s control. And the
    significant risk and expense associated with presenting and litigating
    its claims are far from extraordinary. Finally, the special relation-
    ship between the United States and Indian tribes, as articulated in
    the ISDA, does not override clear statutory language. Pp. 7–8.
    
    764 F.3d 51
    , affirmed.
    ALITO, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
    Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016)                              1
    Opinion of the Court
    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
    preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
    notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
    ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
    that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    _________________
    No. 14–510
    _________________
    MENOMINEE INDIAN TRIBE OF WISCONSIN,
    PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES, ET AL.
    ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
    APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    [January 25, 2016]
    JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
    Petitioner Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin (Tribe)
    seeks equitable tolling to preserve contract claims not
    timely presented to a federal contracting officer. Because
    the Tribe cannot establish extraordinary circumstances
    that stood in the way of timely filing, we hold that equit-
    able tolling does not apply.
    I
    Congress enacted the Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act (ISDA), Pub. L. 93–638, 88 Stat.
    2203, 
    25 U.S. C
    . §450 et seq., in 1975 to help Indian tribes
    assume responsibility for aid programs that benefit their
    members. Under the ISDA, tribes may enter into “self-
    determination contracts” with federal agencies to take
    control of a variety of federally funded programs. §450f. A
    contracting tribe is eligible to receive the amount of money
    that the Government would have otherwise spent on the
    program, see §450j–1(a)(1), as well as reimbursement for
    reasonable “contract support costs,” which include admin-
    istrative and overhead costs associated with carrying out
    the contracted programs, §§450j–1(a)(2), (3), (5).
    2       MENOMINEE TRIBE OF WIS. v. UNITED STATES
    Opinion of the Court
    In 1988, Congress amended the ISDA to apply the Con-
    tract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 
    41 U.S. C
    . §7101 et seq.,
    to disputes arising under the ISDA. See 
    25 U.S. C
    .
    §450m–1(d); Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act Amendments of 1988, §206(2), 102 Stat.
    2295. As part of its mandatory administrative process for
    resolving contract disputes, the CDA requires contractors
    to present “[e]ach claim” they may have to a contracting
    officer for decision. 
    41 U.S. C
    . §7103(a)(1). Congress later
    amended the CDA to include a 6-year statute of limita-
    tions for presentment of each claim. Federal Acquisition
    Streamlining Act of 1994, 
    41 U.S. C
    . §7103(a)(4)(A).
    Under the CDA, the contracting officer’s decision is
    generally final, unless challenged through one of the
    statutorily authorized routes. §7103(g). A contractor
    dissatisfied with the officer’s decision may either take an
    administrative appeal to a board of contract appeals or file
    an action for breach of contract in the United States Court
    of Federal Claims. §§7104(a), (b)(1), 7105(b). Both routes
    then lead to the United States Court of Appeals for the
    Federal Circuit for any further review.          
    28 U.S. C
    .
    §1295(a)(3); 
    41 U.S. C
    . §7107(a)(1); see 
    25 U.S. C
    .
    §450m–1(d). Under the ISDA, tribal contractors have a
    third option. They may file a claim for money damages in
    federal district court, §§450m–1(a), (d), and if they lose,
    they may pursue an appeal in one of the regional courts of
    appeals, 
    28 U.S. C
    . §1291.
    Tribal contractors have repeatedly complained that the
    Federal Government has not fully honored its obligations
    to pay contract support costs. Three lawsuits making such
    claims are relevant here.
    The first was a class action filed by the Ramah Navajo
    Chapter alleging that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
    systematically underpaid certain contract support costs.
    Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Lujan, No. 1:90–cv–0957
    (D NM) (filed Oct. 4, 1990). In 1993, Ramah successfully
    Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016)            3
    Opinion of the Court
    moved for certification of a nationwide class of all tribes
    that had contracted with the BIA under the ISDA. See
    Order and Memorandum Opinion in Ramah Navajo Chap-
    ter v. Lujan, No. 1:90–cv–0957 (D NM, Oct. 1, 1993), App.
    35–40. The Government argued that each tribe needed to
    present its claims to a contracting officer before it could
    participate in the class. 
    Id., at 37–38.
    But the trial court
    held that tribal contractors could participate in the class
    without presentment, because the suit alleged systemwide
    flaws in the BIA’s contracting scheme, not merely breaches
    of individual contracts. 
    Id., at 39.
    The Government did
    not appeal the certification order, and the Ramah class
    action proceeded to further litigation and settlement.
    The second relevant ISDA suit raised similar claims
    about contract support costs but arose from contracts with
    the Indian Health Service (IHS). Cherokee Nation of Okla.
    v. United States, No. 6:99–cv–0092 (ED Okla.) (filed Mar.
    5, 1999). In Cherokee Nation, two tribes filed a putative
    class action against IHS. On February 9, 2001, the Dis-
    trict Court denied class certification without addressing
    whether tribes would need to present claims to join the
    class. Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. United States, 199
    F. R. D. 357, 363–366 (ED Okla.). The two plaintiff tribes
    did not appeal the denial of class certification but proceeded
    to the merits on their own, eventually prevailing before
    this Court in a parallel suit. See Cherokee Nation of Okla.
    v. Leavitt, 
    543 U.S. 631
    (2005).
    The third relevant case is the one now before us. In this
    case, the Tribe presented its contract support claims (for
    contract years 1995 through 2004) to IHS on September 7,
    2005, shortly after our Cherokee Nation ruling. As rele-
    vant here, the contracting officer denied the Tribe’s claims
    based on its 1996, 1997, and 1998 contracts because, inter
    alia, those claims were barred by the CDA’s 6-year statute
    4        MENOMINEE TRIBE OF WIS. v. UNITED STATES
    Opinion of the Court
    of limitations.1 The Tribe challenged the denials in the
    United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
    arguing, based on theories of class-action and equitable
    tolling, that the limitations period should be tolled for the
    707 days that the putative Cherokee Nation class had been
    pending. See American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 
    414 U.S. 538
    (1974) (class-action tolling); Holland v. Florida,
    
    560 U.S. 631
    (2010) (equitable tolling).
    Initially, the District Court held that the limitations
    period was jurisdictional and thus forbade tolling of any
    sort. 
    539 F. Supp. 2d 152
    , 154, and n. 2 (DDC 2008). On
    appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District
    of Columbia Circuit concluded that the limitations period
    was not jurisdictional and thus did not necessarily bar
    tolling. 
    614 F.3d 519
    , 526 (2010). But the court held that
    the Tribe was ineligible for class-action tolling during the
    pendency of the putative Cherokee Nation class, because
    the Tribe’s failure to present its claims to IHS made it
    “ineligible to participate in the class action at the time
    class certification [was] 
    denied.” 614 F.3d, at 527
    (apply-
    ing American Pipe). The court then remanded the case to
    the District Court to determine the Tribe’s eligibility for
    equitable tolling.
    On remand, the District Court concluded that the
    Tribe’s asserted reasons for failing to present its claims
    within the specified time “do not, individually or collec-
    tively, amount to an extraordinary circumstance” that
    could warrant equitable tolling. 
    841 F. Supp. 2d 99
    , 107 (DC
    2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). This time, the
    Court of Appeals affirmed. 
    764 F.3d 51
    (CADC 2014). It
    ——————
    1 Because the contract claims accrued no later than the end of each
    calendar-year contract, the District Court determined, the statute of
    limitations for the 1996, 1997, and 1998 contracts had run by January
    1st of the years 2003, 2004, and 2005, respectively. 
    539 F. Supp. 2d 152
    , 154, n. 1 (DC 2008). The Tribe does not dispute the timing of
    accrual before this Court.
    Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016)             5
    Opinion of the Court
    explained that, “[t]o count as sufficiently ‘extraordinary’ to
    support equitable tolling, the circumstances that caused a
    litigant’s delay must have been beyond its control,” and
    “cannot be a product of that litigant’s own misunderstand-
    ing of the law or tactical mistakes in litigation.” 
    Id., at 58.
    Because none of the Tribe’s proffered circumstances was
    beyond its control, the court held, there were no extraor-
    dinary circumstances that could merit equitable tolling.
    The Court of Appeals’ decision created a split with the
    Federal Circuit, which granted another tribal entity equi-
    table tolling under similar circumstances. See Arctic
    Slope Native Assn., Ltd. v. Sebelius, 
    699 F.3d 1289
    (CA
    Fed. 2012). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.
    576 U. S. ___ (2015).
    II
    The Court of Appeals denied the Tribe’s request for
    equitable tolling by applying the test that we articulated
    in Holland v. Florida, 
    560 U.S. 631
    . Under Holland, a
    litigant is entitled to equitable tolling of a statute of limi-
    tations only if the litigant establishes two elements: “(1)
    that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2)
    that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way
    and prevented timely filing.” 
    Id., at 649
    (internal quota-
    tion marks omitted).
    The Tribe calls this formulation of the equitable tolling
    test overly rigid, given the doctrine’s equitable nature.
    First, it argues that diligence and extraordinary circum-
    stances should be considered together as two factors in a
    unitary test, and it faults the Court of Appeals for declin-
    ing to consider the Tribe’s diligence in connection with its
    finding that no extraordinary circumstances existed. But
    we have expressly characterized equitable tolling’s two
    components as “elements,” not merely factors of indeter-
    minate or commensurable weight. Pace v. DiGuglielmo,
    
    544 U.S. 408
    , 418 (2005) (“Generally, a litigant seeking
    6      MENOMINEE TRIBE OF WIS. v. UNITED STATES
    Opinion of the Court
    equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing two
    elements”). And we have treated the two requirements as
    distinct elements in practice, too, rejecting requests for
    equitable tolling where a litigant failed to satisfy one
    without addressing whether he satisfied the other. See,
    e.g., Lawrence v. Florida, 
    549 U.S. 327
    , 336–337 (2007)
    (rejecting equitable tolling without addressing diligence
    because habeas petitioner fell “far short of showing ‘ex-
    traordinary circumstances’ ”); 
    Pace, supra, at 418
    (holding,
    without resolving litigant’s argument that he had “satis-
    fied the extraordinary circumstance test,” that, “[e]ven if
    we were to accept [his argument], he would not be entitled
    to relief because he has not established the requisite
    diligence”).
    Second, the Tribe objects to the Court of Appeals’ inter-
    pretation of the “extraordinary circumstances” prong as
    requiring a litigant seeking tolling to show an “external
    obstacl[e]” to timely filing, i.e., that “the circumstances
    that caused a litigant’s delay must have been beyond its
    
    control.” 764 F.3d, at 58
    –59. The Tribe complains that
    this “external obstacle” formulation amounts to the same
    kind of “ ‘overly rigid per se approach’ ” we rejected in
    Holland. Brief for Petitioner 32 
    (quoting 560 U.S., at 653
    ). But in truth, the phrase “external obstacle” merely
    reflects our requirement that a litigant seeking tolling
    show “that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his
    way.” 
    Id., at 649
    (emphasis added; internal quotation
    marks omitted). This phrasing in Holland (and in Pace
    before that) would make little sense if equitable tolling
    were available when a litigant was responsible for its own
    delay. Indeed, the diligence prong already covers those
    affairs within the litigant’s control; the extraordinary-
    circumstances prong, by contrast, is meant to cover mat-
    ters outside its control. We therefore reaffirm that the
    second prong of the equitable tolling test is met only
    where the circumstances that caused a litigant’s delay are
    Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016)                   7
    Opinion of the Court
    both extraordinary and beyond its control.2
    III
    The Tribe offers no circumstances that meet this stand-
    ard.
    Its mistaken reliance on the putative Cherokee Nation
    class action was not an obstacle beyond its control.3 As
    the Tribe conceded below, 
    see 614 F.3d, at 526
    –527, it
    could not have been a member of the putative Cherokee
    Nation class because it did not present its claims to an
    IHS contracting officer before class certification was de-
    nied. Before then, the Tribe had unilateral authority to
    present its claims and to join the putative class. Present-
    ment was blocked not by an obstacle outside its control,
    but by the Tribe’s mistaken belief that presentment was
    unneeded.
    The Tribe’s mistake, in essence, was its inference that
    the reasoning of the Ramah class certification decision
    (allowing tribes to participate—without presentment—in
    the class challenging underpayment of BIA contract sup-
    port costs) applied to the putative Cherokee Nation class.
    This mistake was fundamentally no different from “a
    garden variety claim of excusable neglect,” Irwin v. De-
    partment of Veterans Affairs, 
    498 U.S. 89
    , 96 (1990), “such
    as a simple ‘miscalculation’ that leads a lawyer to miss a
    filing deadline,” 
    Holland, supra, at 651
    (quoting 
    Lawrence, supra, at 336
    ). And it is quite different from relying on
    ——————
    2 Holland v. Florida, 
    560 U.S. 631
    (2010), is a habeas case, and we
    have never held that its equitable-tolling test necessarily applies
    outside the habeas context. Nevertheless, because we agree that the
    Tribe cannot meet Holland’s test, we have no occasion to decide whether
    an even stricter test might apply to a nonhabeas case. Nor does the
    Tribe argue that a more generous test than Holland’s should apply
    here.
    3 Because we conclude that the Tribe’s mistake of law was not outside
    its control, we need not decide whether a mistake of law, however
    reasonable, could ever be extraordinary.
    8        MENOMINEE TRIBE OF WIS. v. UNITED STATES
    Opinion of the Court
    actually binding precedent that is subsequently reversed.4
    The Tribe’s other excuses are even less compelling. Its
    belief that presentment was futile was not an obstacle
    beyond its control but a species of the same mistake that
    kept it out of the putative Cherokee Nation class. And the
    fact that there may have been significant risk and expense
    associated with presenting and litigating its claims is far
    from extraordinary. As the District Court noted below, “it
    is common for a litigant to be confronted with significant
    costs to litigation, limited financial resources, an uncer-
    tain outcome based upon an uncertain legal landscape,
    and impending deadlines. These circumstances are not
    ‘extraordinary.’ 
    841 F. Supp. 2d, at 107
    .
    Finally, the Tribe also urges us to consider the special
    relationship between the United States and Indian tribes,
    as articulated in the ISDA. See 
    25 U.S. C
    . §450a(b)
    (“Congress declares its commitment to the maintenance of
    the Federal Government’s unique and continuing relation-
    ship with, and responsibility to, individual Indian tribes
    and to the Indian people as a whole”). We do not question
    the “general trust relationship between the United States
    and the Indian tribes,” but any specific obligations the
    Government may have under that relationship are “gov-
    erned by statute rather than the common law.” United
    States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 
    564 U.S. 162
    , 165
    (2011). The ISDA and CDA establish a clear procedure for
    the resolution of disputes over ISDA contracts, with an
    unambiguous 6-year deadline for presentment of claims.
    The “general trust relationship” does not override the
    clear language of those statutes.5
    ——————
    4 The Court of Appeals speculated, without deciding, that such a de-
    velopment might merit tolling, but like that court we have no occasion
    to decide the question.
    5 Because we hold that there were no extraordinary circumstances,
    we need not decide whether the Tribe was diligently pursuing its
    rights. We also need not accept the Tribe’s invitation to assess preju-
    Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016)                     9
    Opinion of the Court
    IV
    For these reasons, the judgment of the United States
    Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is
    affirmed.
    It is so ordered.
    ——————
    dice to the Government, because the absence of prejudice to the oppos-
    ing party “is not an independent basis for invoking the doctrine [of
    equitable tolling] and sanctioning deviations from established proce-
    dures.” Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 
    466 U.S. 147
    , 152
    (1984) (per curiam). Rather, the absence of prejudice is “a factor to be
    considered in determining whether the doctrine of equitable tolling
    should apply once a factor that might justify such tolling is identified.”
    
    Ibid. (emphasis added).