U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 46— INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION AND EDUCATION ASSISTANCE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION

25 U.S.C. § 5326

Indian Health Service: availability of funds for Indian self-determination or self-governance contract or grant support costs

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar

Before, on, and after October 21, 1998, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds available to the Indian Health Service in this Act or any other Act for Indian self-determination or self-governance contract or grant support costs may be expended only for costs directly attributable to contracts, grants and compacts pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act [25 U.S.C. 5321 et seq.] and no funds appropriated by this or any other Act shall be available for any contract support costs or indirect costs associated with any contract, grant, cooperative agreement, self-governance compact, or funding agreement entered into between an Indian tribe or tribal organization and any entity other than the Indian Health Service.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: N. Arapaho Tribe v. Becerra, 61 F.4th 810 (10th Cir. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
N. Arapaho Tribe v. Becerra, 61 F.4th 810 (10th Cir. 2023). · cites it 7× “25 U.S.C. § 5326 Seeking an escape hatch, the government points to 25 U.”
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Azar, 376 F. Supp. 3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “25 U.S.C. § 5326 . The Court therefore finds that summary judgment in favor of the Tribe is unwarranted at this stage as well.”
Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 602 U.S. 222 (2024). “25 U. S. C. § 5326 . And the tribes' requested funding is clearly “associated with” the money that the tribes receive as a result of those contracts.”
Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 602 U.S. 222 (2024). “25 U. S. C. §5326 . And the tribes’ requested funding is clearly “associated with” the money that the tribes receive as a result of those contracts.”
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Azar (D. Ariz. 2020). · cites it 5× “§ 5326 15 25 U.S.C. § 5326 also dooms the Tribe’s claim.”
Gila River Indian Cmty. v. Becerra (D.D.C. 2024). · cites it 2× “§ 450j-2 (recodified at 25 U.S.C. § 5326 ), but that statute provides that “no funds appropriated by this or any other Act shall be available for any contract support costs or indirect costs associated with any .”
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Azar (D.D.C. 2019). “25 U.S.C. § 5326 . The Court therefore finds that summary judgment in favor of the Tribe is unwarranted at this stage as well.”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Azar (D.D.C. 2019). “at 17–21, the Court need not reach this issue because § 5325 and § 5588(j) are sufficient to resolve this case, and § 5326 does not change the Court’s reading of those provisions regarding third-party revenue.”
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Xavier Becerra (9th Cir. 2022). “Second, Defendants point to 25 U.S.C. § 5326 , which reads: Before, on, and after October 21, 1998, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds available to the Indian Health Service in this Act or any other Act for Indian self-determination or self-governance contract…”
Anthony v. United States (D. Ariz. 2020). “See 25 U.S.C. § 5326 . The Fort Defiance Indian Hospital Board, 26 Inc.”
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. Haaland (D.S.D. 2024). “1997), superseded by statute, 25 U.S.C. § 5326 , as recognized in San Carlos Apache Tribe v.”
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. Haaland (D.S.D. 2025). “1997), superseded by statute, 25 U.S.C. § 5326 , as recognized in San Carlos Apache Tribe v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.