## Facts

- Tribal entities entered Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA) contracts with the Department of the Interior for fiscal years 1994–2001 to operate programs previously run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
- Each contract required the Government to pay the tribe’s full “contract support costs” (CSCs), “subject to the availability of appropriations.”
- For each year at issue, Congress appropriated enough to pay any single tribe’s CSCs in full, but not enough to pay all tribes’ CSCs collectively.
- The Secretary of the Interior adopted a pro rata payment policy, paying each tribe only a percentage of its CSCs due to the aggregate shortfall.
- The tribes sued under the Contract Disputes Act, alleging breach for failure to pay the full CSC amounts promised.

## Issues

1. Whether ISDA requires the Government to pay each tribe’s CSCs in full when appropriations are sufficient to pay any individual tribe’s claim but insufficient to pay all claims in the aggregate.
2. Whether an express statutory cap on total CSC appropriations limits the Government’s contractual liability to less than the full amount owed under individual ISDA contracts.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the tribes.
- The Court held the Government must pay each tribe’s CSCs in full so long as Congress appropriated legally available funds from which that tribe could have been paid, even if total appropriations were insufficient to satisfy all tribes’ CSCs.
- The Court rejected the argument that an express cap on CSC appropriations, by itself, eliminated ordinary contract liability for unpaid amounts under individual contracts.

## Legal Principles

- ISDA self-determination contracts are governed by ordinary federal contract principles; the United States is liable for the full contract amount when appropriations legally available to pay the contract exist.
- “Subject to the availability of appropriations” is satisfied as to a contractor when there are appropriated funds legally available to pay that contractor, even if the agency allocates funds elsewhere or cannot pay all contractors.
- A statutory cap on the total amount appropriated for a category of contract payments does not, without clearer limiting language, convert contractual promises into pro rata obligations or bar damages for breach of individual contracts.
- Contractors are not required to monitor agency funding priorities; the Government bears the risk of underfunding relative to its contractual commitments.

## Conclusion

The Court required full payment of CSCs promised in ISDA contracts when appropriations were legally available to pay each claimant, placing the risk of aggregate underappropriation on the Government rather than on tribal contractors.


Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 567 U.S. 182 (2012)