Court Opinion

ID: 9491047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:02:13.872513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:28.723184
License: Public Domain

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I would affirm the judgment of the district court. Our court’s decision in Washington State Department of Transportation v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 59 F.3d 793 (9th Cir.1995), compels the conclusion that the Bering Strait School District (“BSSD”) is an instrumentality of the “State” for purposes of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq. BSSD is *1285therefore exempt from having to reimburse the federal government for health services provided to its Alaska Native employees. See 25 U.S.C. § 1621e(b).
As the majority acknowledges, we held in Washington Natural Gas that “[t]he organized government of a state includes state administrative departments and agencies ____[including] ‘[a] department, commission, board, committee, or body of any form operating as an instrumentality of the state government.’ ” 59 F.3d at 800 (quoting Ballen-tine’s Law Dictionary 1210 (3d ed.1969)). Therefore, under Washington Natural Gas, the relevant question is whether BSSD is a body operating as an instrumentality of the Alaskan government.
The majority’s principal justification for its conclusion that BSSD is not an instrumentality of Alaska is that BSSD has “jurisdiction over only a limited area.”1 See Majority Opinion at 2295. However, our determination as to whether a government entity qualifies as an instrumentality of either a state or the federal government should not turn solely on the geographical dimension over which the government entity exercises jurisdiction. Is the Ninth Circuit not an instrumentality of the federal government, notwithstanding the fact that it comprises ’only 9 of the 50 states?
Instead of focusing on geography, our inquiry as to whether a government entity qualifies as a state agency should focus, as Washington Natural Gas suggests, on the amount of control the state wields over that entity. Alaska exercises a high degree of control over BSSD, which is located in its only unorganized borough. The Alaskan Constitution provides:
The legislature shall provide for the performance of services it deems necessary or advisable in unorganized boroughs, allowing for maximum local participation and responsibility. It may exercise any power or function in an unorganized borough which the assembly may exercise in an organized borough.
Alaska Const, art. X, § 6.
In Alaska’s organized boroughs, the borough assembly provides the money necessary to operate the school districts. See AS 14.12.020(c). However, in the unorganized borough, the state legislature is required to “provide the state money necessary to maintain and operate” the schools. Id. Furthermore, because BSSD is not an organized borough or a city, it does not have the power to tax. See Alaska Const, art. X, § 2 (“The State may delegate taxing powers to organized boroughs and cities only.”). BSSD therefore receives 82% of its income from the state.2 Consequently, Alaska would ultimately shoulder the brunt of any judgment entered against BSSD.
Our decision in Alaska v. Chevron Chemical Co., 669 F.2d 1299 (9th Cir.1982), supports the view that the BSSD is an instrumentality of the state of Alaska. In Chevron, we held that the University of Alaska is “a state department or agency that enjoys co-equal status with the executive branch.” Id. at 1303 n. 6. We reached this conclusion despite the fact that the University of Alaska is a corporate entity, has the power to sue and be sued, “independently fixes the salaries of its employees, controls and manages its own real estate, personal property, and money, has independent discretion to invest any and ‘ all funds or property, and may lease or sell federal land grants without the approval of the State legislature or executive.”3 Id. at 1303-04 (Wallace, J., dissenting).
In light of these considerations, I believe that Alaska exercises sufficient control over BSSD to compel the conclusion that BSSD is a “state agency” as that term was defined by *1286our court in Washington Natural Gas. Consequently, I disagree with the majority’s holding that BSSD is not exempt under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act from having to reimburse the federal government for' health services provided to its Alaska Native employees.
I respectfully dissent.

.In Washington Natural Gas, we stated that “[a] municipality, a local government with authority over a limited area, is a different type of government than a state-wide agency that is part of the organized government of the state itself.” Id. at 800 n. 5. Although it follows from this statement that a municipality is not a state agency, it assuredly does not follow that all government entities "with authority over a limited area” are not state agencies. Id.

. Of the remaining 18%, 13% comes from the federal government, while only 5% comes from local sources.

. In contrast to the University of Alaska, the BSSD is not a corporate entity and does not hold title to any real property.