Shalala

Cook Inlet Treaty Tribes v. Shalala

Good Law
166 F.3d 986·99 Daily Journal DAR 961·1999 WL 33704·1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 1049·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 785
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 28, 1999No. 97-35254California2,572 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McKeown, J.

The central question in this case is whether a health services compact administered by an Alaska Native Regional Corporation under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDEA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 450a-450n, requires the approval of Alaska Native villages that are neither parties to the compact nor situated within the specific area serviced under the compact. As to the parties here, Congress answered this question in the negative in legislation passed after this appeal was filed. The appeal is now moot and we dismiss it.

*988 BACKGROUND

In an effort to shift administration of health services and other programs from the federal government to tribal organizations, the ISDEA authorizes the Secretaries of the Interior and Health and Human Services to “compact” with Indian tribes to provide funding for Indian-run services programs. 25 U.S.C. § 450f note. The subject of this litigation is a health services compact that the Indian Health Service (“IHS”), an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, awarded in 1994 to Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (“CIRI”), an Alaska Native Regional Corporation and Indian tribe. See 43 U.S.C. § 1602 (g); 25 U.S.C. § 450b(e); see…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.