Here is the complaint in Rothe Development, Inc. v. Dept. of Defense (D. D.C.):
An excerpt:
Congressional amendments in 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-272, § 18015, 100 Stat. 370) and 1988 (Pub. L. No. 100-656, § 207, 102 Stat. 3861, as amended by Pub. L. No. 101-37, § 6, 103 Stat. 72) also added “Indian tribes” and “Native Hawaiian Organizations” to the races deemed presumptively socially disadvantaged by 15 U.S.C. § 631(f)(1). However, ROTHE does not challenge the classifications “Indian tribes” and “Native Hawaiian Organizations” in this action. ROTHE understands the distinction in law drawn between “Native American” as a racial classification, on one hand, and an entity the United States has treaty or trust obligations towards, such as an “Indian tribe” or a “Native Hawaiian Organization” on the other. Cf. Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) (legislation that singles out federally recognized Indian tribes is Constitutional “where the preference is reasonable and rationally designed to further Indian self-government”). ROTHE is only challenging the racial classification of section 8(a), which by definition includes only those groups currently classified by law as being “racial” groups: Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities to be determined by the SBA (to date, Subcontinent Asian Americans).
Update: It appears the court resolved these questions in favor of the constitutionality of Section 8(a) in another case:
Turtle Talk 