Vernon Solomon v. Interior Regional Housing Authority

Title 25 U.S.C. § 450e(b) provides that “[a]ny contract, subcontract, grant, or sub-grant pursuant to [an act] authorizing Federal contracts with or grants to Indian organizations or for the benefit of Indians, shall require that to the greatest extent feasible,” preference shall be given to Indians in the employment and training opportunities connected with the grant. This appeal requires us to decide whether that statute creates a private right of action for a Native Alaskan who applied unsuccessfully for a job with a Native Alaskan regional housing authority. The answer to that question is “no.”

. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Vernon Solomon is a Native Alaskan. Defendant Interior Regional Housing Authority (Authority) is a regional housing authority formed by Native Alaskan associations pursuant to Alaska Statute § 18.55.996. The Authority provides housing services to low-income Native Alaskans. 1982 Op. Alaska Att’y Gen/ (June 8, No. J-66-220-82A) ( 1982 WL 48622 ); see also 25 U.S.C. § 4103 (21)(B) (recognizing regional housing authorities in the state of Alaska for the purpose of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act).

The…

dissenting:

The majority holds that there is no implied private right of action for a Native American to enforce a violation of the Indian employment preference requirement contained in 25 U.S.C. § 450 (e)(b). Because the majority’s position is contrary to settled precedent and effectively eviscerates a statutory preference duly enacted by Congress, I dissent.

I.

The majority’s analysis gives lip service to, but fundamentally misapplies, the four-factor test set forth in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 , 95 S.Ct. 2080 , 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975). Beginning with the first prong, there can be little question that § 450e was enacted for the benefit of a special class of which Solomon is a member. The Supreme Court’s language, in both Cort *1202 and Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 , 99 S.Ct. 1946 , 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), specifies that the benefit must inhere to “a special class,” not “specific individuals in a special class,” in order to satisfy the test. The operative wording of § 450e does precisely that: It enacts a required employment and training preference in favor of Indian applicants. It strains common sense to construe this provision, otherwise than as referring to…

313 F.3d 1194 Vernon SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERIOR REGIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 01-35766. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted August 9, 2002. Filed December 20, 2002. Michael J. Walleri, Law Offices of Michael J. Walleri, Fairbanks, AK, for the plaintiff-appellant. Tracey L. Knutson and Craig Wm. Black, Sisson & Knutson, P.C., Anchorage, AK, for the defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska; John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-00001-F-JWS. Before: B. FLETCHER, ALARCON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. GRABER, Circuit Judge. 1 Title 25 U.S.C. § 450e(b) provides that "[a]ny contract, subcontract, grant, or subgrant pursuant to [an act] authorizing Federal contracts with or grants to Indian organizations or for the benefit of Indians, shall require that to the greatest extent feasible," preference shall be given to Indians in the employment and training opportunities connected with the grant. This appeal requires us to decide whether that statute creates a private right of action for a Native Alaskan who applied unsuccessfully for a job with…