D.C. Federal Court Will Not Hold Feds in Contempt for Failure to Comply with Court Order in Burt Lake Federal Recognition Matter, Despite “Petulant” Tone of Government’s Response

Here is the minute order in Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. Haaland (D.D.C.): 

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 80 Motion to Enforce Judgment. In March of 2020, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. See Dkt. 39. It struck down the Department of Interior’s 2015 ban on tribes’ re-petitioning for federal recognition as arbitrary and capricious, and it remanded the challenged rule to the agency for further consideration. See Dkt. 40. The matter is still under consideration today. In July of 2023, when a new rule had yet to be enacted, plaintiff moved to reopen the case and asked the Court to order DOI to adopt a final rule based on what was the most recent draft at the time. See Dkt. 71. The Court denied that motion for lack of jurisdiction, but on August 21, 2023, it did order DOI to submit its finalized draft to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget – a separate agency that had to be consulted – by August 31, 2023. Min. Order (Aug. 21, 2023). DOI moved for reconsideration, and in August of 2023, the Court modified its order to require the Department of the Interior to submit either a new proposed rule or a final rule to OIRA by October 31, 2023 and to update the Court on the status of its efforts by November 1, 2023. On November 1, the government reported that OIRA deemed the proposed rule to be “a significant regulatory action” warranting 90 more days of interagency review, after which OIRA would send comments back to the Department of Interior, the Department would respond, OIRA would reconsider, and, eventually, senior leadership at the agency would finalize the rule. Dkt. 77. Almost a year later, on August 2, 2024, plaintiffs moved the Court to hold defendants in contempt and to order defendants to finalize the rule at issue in this case by November 1, 2024. Dkt. 80. According to plaintiff, “DOI is no closer to publishing a final rule than this time last year and has evaded publishing a new rule for over four years. The Court can set this deadline by either enforcing its judgment or finding DOI in contempt for its failure to comply.” Id. at 1. In its opposition to the motion, defendants informed the Court that it submitted a second proposed rule to OIRA on October 31, 2023 in compliance with this Court’s August 21, 2023 minute order, see Decl. of Oliver Whaley p. 7, Ex. 1 to Def.’s Opp. [82-1] at 2, and that the second proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2024, with public comments due by September 13, 2024. Id. p. 18. Nevertheless, defendants’ declarant avers that there is still more work to be done, including further OIRA review and approval from Department of Interior leadership. Id. p. 2122. While the petulant tone of the defendants’ submission is misplaced given the inexcusably long period of time it has taken it to get to this point, it is true that DOI is not in violation of the Court’s Order of August 21, 2023, and its recent actions are consistent with the Court’s judgment, so holding defendants in contempt would be inappropriate in light of these recent developments. Nevertheless, four years have elapsed since the Court’s judgment, and a rule has yet to be promulgated. It is therefore ORDERED that defendants must file a status report by October 11, 2024 informing the Court of further developments since their opposition was filed at the end of August. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 10/4/2024. (lcabj2). (Entered: 10/07/2024) [emphasis added]

Prior post here.

D.C. Federal Court Denies Injunction in California Miwok Case

Here are materials in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

11-1 Motion to Dismiss

13 Opposition to MTD

15 Reply ISO MTD

18-1 Motion for PI

20 Opposition to Motion for PI

24 DCT Order Denying PI

D.C. Circuit Briefs in Hill v. DOI [Challenge to Crow Water Rights Settlement]

Here:

Hill Opening Brief

Federal Answer Brief

Lower court materials here.

D.C. Federal Court Dismisses Freedmen Descendants’ $90M Suit against Feds and Cherokee Nation

Here are the materials in Hinton v. Cherokee Nation (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

16-1 Cherokee Nation Motion to Dismiss

20 US Motion to Dismiss

25 Hinton Response to 16

26 Hinton Response to 20

27 US Reply ISO 20

28 Cherokee Nation Reply ISO 16

30 DCT Order

D.C. Federal Court Rejects Red Lake Ojibwe Claims in Dispute over Obaashiing Chemical Health Treatment Center Funding

Here are the materials in Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. Dept. of Health and Human Services (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

13-1 federal Motion to Dismiss

14-1 Red Lake Motion for Summary J

23 Federal Reply

25 Red Lake Reply

28 DCt Order

D.C. District Court Allows Discrimination Claims by Navajo Citizen to Proceed against N.O.W.

Here are materials in Yazzie v. National Organization for Women (D.D.C.):

1-3 Complaint

30-2 NOW Motion for Summary J

33 Opposition

34 Reply

36 DCT Order

D.C. Federal Court Declines to Enjoin Interior Work to Organize California Valley Miwok Tribe

Here are the materials in the case captioned California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

37 Motion for Preliminary Injunction

38 Response

39 Reply

40 DCT Order

D.C. Federal Court Dismisses Eastern Pequot Effort to Move Acknowledgement Petition Forward Faster

Here are the materials in Historical Eastern Pequot Tribe v. Office of Acknowledgment (D.D.C.):

17 Second Amended Complaint

16 Motion to Dismiss

19 Opposition

20 Reply

22 DCT Order

Canadian shit, I know.

D.C. Federal Court Dismisses Crow Allottees Challenge to Water Rights Settlement

Here are the materials in Hill v. Dept. of the Interior (D.D.C.):

14 Amended Complaint

16 Motion to Dismiss

20 AAA Response

23 Reply

25 DCT Order

Utah Federal Court Dismisses Ute Water-Related Breach of Trust Claims

Here are the materials in Ute Indian Tribe v. Dept. of the Interior (D. Utah):

199 Water District Motion to Dismiss

200 US Motion to Dismiss

201 Utah Motion to Dismiss

207 Response to Water District Motion

208 Response to State Motion

210 Response to US Motion

214 Utah Reply

215 US Reply

216 Water District Reply

244 DCT Order

Prior post here.