Here are the new materials in Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

63-1 Burt Lake Motion

Docket No. 64: MINUTE ORDER. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the law presumes that “a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. EPA, 363 F.3d 442, 448 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“As a court of limited jurisdiction, we begin, and end, with an examination of our jurisdiction.”). Subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and “courts may raise the issue sua sponte.” NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 120 (D.C. Cir. 2008), quoting Athens Cmty. Hosp., Inc. v. Schweiker, 686 F.2d 989, 992 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Indeed, a federal court must raise the issue because it is “forbidden… from acting beyond [its] authority, and ‘no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court.'” Id., quoting Akinseye v. Dist. of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In connection with the 63 Motion to Rule Upon Constitutional Claims and For Permanent Injunction, then, plaintiff must show cause by January 6, 2023 why the question of the validity of the proposed rule would be ripe at this time, and why the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider the constitutional issues when there is no live controversy before it. The 2015 rule has been vacated but its replacement has not yet been promulgated, so plaintiff must explain why it is not simply seeking an advisory opinion. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/23/2022. (lcabj2) (Entered: 12/23/2022)

65 Burt Lake Response

66 Interior Response

Prior post here.