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.

Burt Lake Again Motions to Re-Open Federal Recognition Suit — Interior Missed Deadline Again

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

Prior post here.

Update:

The last home left from the Burt Lake Burnout

D.C. Circuit Rejects Federal Recognition of “Pilchuk Nation”

Here are the materials in Kanam v. Bureau of Indian Affairs:

Order

Kanam Opening Brief

Answer Brief

Reply

Burt Lake Band Attempting to Re-open Federal Recognition Suit

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.

Washington Federal Court Keeps Muckleshoot Out as Party in Duwamish Recognition Suit

Here are the materials in Duwamish Tribe v. Haaland (W.D. Wash.):

14 Muckleshoot Motion to Intervene

18 Duwamish Opposition

20 Interior Opposition

21 Reply

26 DCT Order

Complaint here.

D.C. Federal Court Rules in Favor of Small Business Admin. in Dispute with Corp. Claiming to be Owned by Recognized Tribe

Here are the materials in GTEC Industries Inc. v. Guzman (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

33-1 SBA Motion

34-1 GTEC Motion

37 SBA Response

38 GTEC Response

39 GTEC Reply

40 SBA Reply

49 GTEC Surreply

50 DCT Order

California Federal Court Allows Taylorsville Rancheria Recognition Suit to Proceed (again)

Here are the new materials in Tsi Akim Maidu of Taylorsville Rancheria v. Dept. of the Interior (E.D. Cal.):

Duwamish Sues for Federal Recognition

Here is the complaint in Duwamish Tribe v. Haaland (W.D. Wash.):

Maryland Federal Court Partially Dismisses, Abstains from Resolving Case Involving Accohannock Indian Tribe

Here are the materials in Accohannock Indian Tribe v. Tyler (D. Md.):

D.C. Circuit Orders Federal Exhaustion in Federal Acknowledgement Matter

Here is the order in Mdewakanton Sioux Indians of Minnesota v. Haaland:

CADC Memorandum Disposition

Briefs here.