In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with tribal authorities in a healthcare funding dispute against the Biden administration.
The Washington Examiner reported that in Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, delivered on Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a decision that could reshape tribal healthcare in the United States.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 5-4 ruling that disagreed with the Biden administration's stance on the distribution of limited funds for tribal healthcare management.
The dispute centers around the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. This federal law enables tribes to manage their healthcare services which would typically be handled by the Indian Health Service (IHS).
The Act promotes tribal autonomy by allowing them to utilize the funds and resources that would have been otherwise used directly by IHS.
The crux of this legal battle was whether tribes were entitled to additional funding for administrative expenses associated with managing funds from third-party sources like Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Indian Health Service should compensate the tribes for these expenses, a decision that highlights the Court's interpretation of the law favoring tribal sovereignty.
This decision came after conflicting rulings from lower courts. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the responsibility of IHS to cover these administrative costs. However, this contradicted a previous decision from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, creating a legal dilemma that escalated to the Supreme Court.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett, dissented.
Kavanaugh critiqued the overturning of a long-held interpretation by the Executive Branch, which required tribes to manage third-party income costs internally. He expressed concern, stating, “For the past 30 years, the Executive Branch has interpreted the relevant statutory provisions … to require tribes to pay those overhead costs out of the third-party income.”
On the other side of the decision, Chief Justice Roberts, alongside Justices Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, upheld the principle that tribal entities could recover these costs. This division highlights a significant split within the court, reflecting differing judicial philosophies regarding statutory interpretation and tribal rights.
The decision is expected to have profound implications on how tribal healthcare programs are funded and managed.
By allowing tribes to recover expenses related to the management of third-party funds, the Court has effectively bolstered the financial autonomy of these tribal healthcare systems.
Following the ruling, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra responded by affirming the administration's commitment to tribal self-determination and sovereignty. Becerra underscored this commitment by pointing to the proposed shift in the fiscal year 2026 budget which aims to transition IHS funding from discretionary to mandatory, ensuring more stable and adequate resources for tribal health services.
Becerra’s statement also reflects a broader governmental shift towards enhancing support for tribal governance structures and ensuring they have the necessary resources to govern effectively.
This ruling, therefore, not only impacts the specific fiscal dynamics of tribal healthcare funding but also signals a reinforcement of tribal sovereignty within the federal legal framework.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe marks a pivotal moment in tribal healthcare management, setting a precedent for how tribal fund allocation and reimbursement are handled. It underscores the ongoing legal and administrative evolution in recognizing and effectively supporting the governmental sovereignty of tribal nations in the United States.