Navajo Nation v. Department of Health & Human Services, Secretary

285 F.3d 864 Navajo NATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Secretary, Defendant-Appellee. No. 99-16129. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted October 31, 2000. Submission deferred December 6, 2000. Resubmitted April 2, 2001. Filed April 8, 2002. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Thomas W. Christie, Assistant Attorney General, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, Navajo Nation (Arizona), for the plaintiff-appellant. John S. Koppel, Appellate Attorney, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Roger G. Strand, District Judge, Presiding. Before B. Betty B. FLETCHER, Diarmuid F. O'SCANNLAIN, and Ronald M. GOULD, Circuit Judges. OPINION O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge. 1 We must decide whether the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, qualifies as a program "for the benefit of Indians because of their status as Indians" within the meaning of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. 2 * In 1996, Congress passed…

We must decide whether the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, administered by tfie Department of Health and Human Services, qualifies as a program “for the benefit of Indians because of their status as Indians” within the meaning of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.

I

In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (“PRWORA” or the “Act”), which made extensive changes in the welfare laws of this country. The Act replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (“AFDC”) with a new program of temporary assistance and work requirements, called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (“TANF”). 42 U.S.C. § 601 , et seq. Under the Act, the federal government provides TANF block grants to interested states, 42 U.S.C. § 603 , or to Indian tribes, 42 U.S.C. § 612 , which then can fund welfare programs for citizens within their jurisdictions, subject to federal conditions.

In October 1997, the Navajo Nation (the “Tribe”) applied to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to receive TANF funds for citizens within its jurisdiction. However, rather than apply for TANF funds…

dissenting:

I dissent. Reduced to its simplest terms, the majority opinion defeats the purpose of the Indian Self Determination Act by allowing Indians to administer federal programs but denying them the funds to do the job. By pursuing a rationale that was advanced by neither party, the majority opinion bends over backwards to accord Chevron deference where none is due. In the process, the majority ignores congressional intent, as well as relevant Supreme Court authority, and creates a circuit split on an important question of administrative and Indian law.

We are the only circuit to hold that in the event of a conflict between the principles of administrative agency deference *876 under Chevron U.S.A, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 , 104 S.Ct. 2778 , 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), and deference to Native American interests under Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759 , 105 S.Ct. 2399 , 85 L.Ed.2d 753 (1985), the latter must give way. See Williams v. Babbitt, 115 F.3d 657 , 663 n. 5 (9th Cir.1997); Seldovia Native Ass’n, Inc., v. Lujan, 904 F.2d 1335, 1342 (9th Cir.1990); Haynes v. United States, 891 F.2d 235, 239 (9th Cir.1989). No other…