Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to USCA, Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation et al. v. Mnuchin, No. 1:20-cv-01002 (D.D.C.), Doc. 117 (July 15, 2020)
Summary
Docket sheet for Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation et al. v. Mnuchin, Case No. 1:20-cv-01002-APM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, filed July 15, 2020 as Document 117. The docket header shows the case assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta, a date filed of 04/17/2020, and USCA case numbers 20-05204 and 20-05205. It lists the plaintiff tribes and communities, among them the Tulalip Tribes and the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island, with their counsel. The document closes with the conclusion of a Memorandum Opinion dated June 26, 2020 that grants the Secretary's and Defendant-Intervenors' Motions for Summary Judgment and denies Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to USCA, Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation et al. v. Mnuchin, No. 1:20-cv-01002 (D.D.C.), Doc. 117 (July 15, 2020).”
Original at storage.courtlistener.com. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/transmission-of-notice-of-appeal-and-docket-sheet-to-usca-confederated-901e1e0f81/
, SHA-256 3dc5610686027979dde08875c65226762f98c2f5f3d2f609b36fe4f2a5c46ecf.Full text
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 76
APPEAL,CONSOL,TYPE−E
U.S. District Court
District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20−cv−01002−APM
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS Date Filed: 04/17/2020
RESERVATION et al v. MNUCHIN Jury Demand: None
Assigned to: Judge Amit P. Mehta Nature of Suit: 899 Administrative
Cases: 1:20−cv−01059−APM Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of
1:20−cv−01070−APM Agency Decision
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
1:20−cv−01491−APM
Case in other court: USCA, 20−05204
USCA, 20−05205
Cause: 05:0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions
Plaintiff
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE represented by Nicole E. Ducheneaux
CHEHALIS RESERVATION Big Fire Law & Policy Group LLP
1404 Fort Crook Road South
Bellevue, NE 68005
United Sta
531−466−8725
Email: nducheneaux@bigfirelaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riyaz A. Kanji
KANJI & KATZEN, PLLC
303 Detroit Street
Suite 400
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
(734) 769−5400
Fax: (734) 769−2701
Email: rkanji@kanjikatzen.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
TULALIP TRIBES represented by Nicole E. Ducheneaux
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riyaz A. Kanji
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
HOULTON BAND OF MALISEET represented by Nicole E. Ducheneaux
1
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 76
INDIANS (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riyaz A. Kanji
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
AKIAK NATIVE COMMUNITY represented by Nicole E. Ducheneaux
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Kenneth Walker
WALKER REAUSAW
800 Connecticut Ave. NW #300
Ste 800
20006
Washington, DC 20006
202−857−7910
Fax: 202−857−7910
Email: wkw@att.net
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riyaz A. Kanji
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
ASA'CARSARMIUT TRIBE represented by Nicole E. Ducheneaux
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riyaz A. Kanji
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
ALEUT COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL represented by Nicole E. Ducheneaux
ISLAND (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riyaz A. Kanji
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
2
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 76
PUEBLO OF PICURIS represented by Nicole E. Ducheneaux
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riyaz A. Kanji
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA, represented by Nicole E. Ducheneaux
CALIFORNIA (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riyaz A. Kanji
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE represented by Nicole E. Ducheneaux
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riyaz A. Kanji
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
QUINAULT INDIAN NATION represented by Nicole E. Ducheneaux
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riyaz A. Kanji
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
NAVAJO NATION represented by Nicole E. Ducheneaux
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wesley James Furlong
NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
745 w. 4th Avenue
Suite 502
Anchorage, AK 99501
3
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 4 of 76
907−276−0680
Fax: 907−276−2466
Email: wfurlong@narf.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul W. Spruhan
NAVAJO NATION DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
P.O. Box 2010
Window Rock, AZ 86515
(928) 871−6210
Email: pspruhan@nndoj.org
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riyaz A. Kanji
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE represented by Nicole E. Ducheneaux
20−cv−01059 (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riyaz A. Kanji
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wesley James Furlong
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rose Michele Weckenmann
BIG FIRE LAW & POLICY GROUP
1404 Fort Crook Road South
68005
Bellevue, NE 68005
531−466−8725
Fax: 531−466−8792
Email: rweckenmann@bigfirelaw.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE represented by Jennifer Bear Eagle
20−cv−01059 OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE
P.O. Box 1204
Pine Ridge, SD 57770
4
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 5 of 76
402−617−3553
Fax: 605−867−2140
Email: JenniferBE@ostlegal.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole E. Ducheneaux
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riyaz A. Kanji
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wesley James Furlong
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE represented by Matthew Newman
20−cv−01059 NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
745 w. 4th Avenue
Suite 502
Anchorage, AK 99501
907−276−0680
Email: mnewman@narf.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Megan Rachel Condon
NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
745 w. 4th Avenue
Suite 502
Anchorage, AK 99501
303−246−7023
Email: mcondon@narf.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Natalie A. Landreth
NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
745 w. 4th Avenue
Suite 502
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 276−0680
Fax: (907) 276−2466
Email: landreth@narf.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
5
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 6 of 76
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole E. Ducheneaux
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riyaz A. Kanji
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wesley James Furlong
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
NONDALTON TRIBAL COUNCIL represented by Matthew Newman
20−cv−01059 (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole E. Ducheneaux
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wesley James Furlong
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
ARTIC VILLAGE COUNCIL represented by Matthew Newman
20−cv−01059 (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole E. Ducheneaux
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wesley James Furlong
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
6
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 7 of 76
Plaintiff
NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE represented by Matthew Newman
TRIBAL GOVERNMENT (See above for address)
20−cv−01059 LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole E. Ducheneaux
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wesley James Furlong
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
UTE TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND represented by Frances C. Bassett
OURAY INDIAN RESERVATION PATTERSON EARNHART REAL BIRD
20−cv−01070 & WILSON LLP
357 S. McCaslin Blvd.
Suite 200
Louisville, CO 80027
303−926−5292
Fax: 303−926−5293
Email: fbassett@nativelawgroup.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S. Rasmussen
PATTERSON EARNHART REAL BIRD
& WILSON LLP
357 S. McCaslin Blvd.
Suite 200
Louisville, CO 80027
303−926−5292
Fax: 303−926−5293
Email: jrasmussen@nativelawgroup.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole E. Ducheneaux
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riyaz A. Kanji
(See above for address)
7
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 8 of 76
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rollie Wilson
PATTERSON EARNHART REAL BIRD
& WILSON LLP
601 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, South Bldg.
Suite 900
Washington, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20004
202−340−8232
Fax: 202−639−8238
Email: rwilson@nativelawgroup.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wesley James Furlong
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy J. Patterson
PATTERSON EARNHART REAL BIRD
& WILSON LLP
357 S. McCaslin Blvd.
Suite 200
Louisville, CO 80027
303−926−5292
Fax: 303−926−5293
Email: jpatterson@nativelawgroup.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
STEVEN MNUCHIN represented by Jason C. Lynch
in his official capacity as Secretary of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Programs Branch
1100 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
202−514−1359
Email: Jason.Lynch@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Intervenor Defendant
AHTNA, INC. represented by
8
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 9 of 76
Jonathan W Katchen
HOLLAND & HART LLP
1029 W Third Avenue
Suite 550
Anchorage, AK 99501
907−865−2600
Email: jwkatchen@hollandhart.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. O'Leary
HOLLAND & HART LLP
901 K Street, NW
Suite 850
Washington, DC 20001
202−654−6922
Email: mjoleary@hollandhart.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Intervenor Defendant
ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE represented by Daniel W. Wolff
CORPORATION ASSOCIATION, CROWELL & MORING
INC. 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004−2595
(202) 624−2500
Email: dwolff@crowell.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Yolun Chung
CROWELL & MORING, LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
202−624−2587
Email: dchung@crowell.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kirsten L. Nathanson
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 624−2887
Fax: (202) 628−5116
Email: knathanson@crowell.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Intervenor Defendant
represented by
9
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 10 of 76
ASSOCIATION OF ANCSA Daniel W. Wolff
REGIONAL CORPORATION (See above for address)
PRESIDENTS/CEO'S, INC. LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kirsten L. Nathanson
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Intervenor Defendant
CALISTA CORPORATION represented by Paul Clement
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 389−5000
Fax: (202) 389−5200
Email: paul.clement@kirkland.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ragan Naresh
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 389−5267
Fax: (202) 389−5200
Email: ragan.naresh@kirkland.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Intervenor Defendant
KWETHLUK, INCORPORATED represented by Paul Clement
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ragan Naresh
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Intervenor Defendant
SEA LION CORPORATION represented by Paul Clement
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ragan Naresh
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
10
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 11 of 76
Intervenor Defendant
ST. MARY'S NATIVE represented by Paul Clement
CORPORATION (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ragan Naresh
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Intervenor Defendant
NAPASKIAK, INCORPORATED represented by Paul Clement
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ragan Naresh
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Intervenor Defendant
AKIACHAK, LIMITED represented by Paul Clement
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ragan Naresh
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Movant
ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE represented by Daniel W. Wolff
CORPORATION ASSOCIATION, (See above for address)
INC. LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Movant
ASSOCIATION OF ANCSA represented by Daniel W. Wolff
REGIONAL CORPORATION (See above for address)
PRESIDENTS/CEO'S, INC. LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Yolun Chung
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
11
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 12 of 76
Amicus
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF represented by Kaighn Smith , Jr
AMERICAN INDIANS DRUMMOND WOODSUM
84 Marginal Way
Suite 600
Portland, ME 04101
(207) 772−1941
Fax: 207−772−3627
Email: ksmith@dwmlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
AFFILIATED TRIBES OF represented by Kaighn Smith , Jr
NORTHWEST INDIANS (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
ALL PUEBLO COUNCIL OF represented by Kaighn Smith , Jr
GOVERNORS (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
ARIZONA INDIAN GAMING represented by Kaighn Smith , Jr
ASSOCIATION (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
CALIFORNIA NATIONS INDIAN represented by Kaighn Smith , Jr
GAMING ASSOCIATION (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
CALIFORNIA TRIBAL represented by Kaighn Smith , Jr
CHAIRPERSON'S ASSOCIATION (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
GREAT PLAINS TRIBAL represented by Kaighn Smith , Jr
CHAIRMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC. (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
12
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 13 of 76
INTER TRIBAL ASSOCIATION OF represented by Kaighn Smith , Jr
ARIZONA, INC. (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
INTER−TRIBAL COUNCIL OF THE represented by Kaighn Smith , Jr
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
MIDWEST ALLIANCE OF represented by Kaighn Smith , Jr
SOVEREIGN TRIBES (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING represented by Kaighn Smith , Jr
ASSOCIATION (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
UNITED SOUTH AND EASTERN represented by Kaighn Smith , Jr
TRIBES SOVEREIGNTY (See above for address)
PROTECTION FUND LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE represented by Christine Williams
ASSOCIATION OUTLOOK LAW LLC
1016 W. 6th Avenue
Suite 306
Anchorage, AK 99501
907−258−2200
Email: christinewilliams@outlooklaw.com
TERMINATED: 07/07/2020
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Kenneth Walker
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Harrison Powell , II
OUTLOOK LAW LLC
1769 Jamestown Road, Suite 122
13
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 14 of 76
Suite 122
Williamsburg, VA 23185
757−349−3119
Email: harrisonpowell@outlooklaw.com
TERMINATED: 07/07/2020
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
ANCSA REGIONAL ASSOCIATION represented by Christine Williams
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 07/07/2020
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel W. Wolff
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Kenneth Walker
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Harrison Powell , II
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 07/07/2020
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
AHTNA, INC. represented by Jonathan W Katchen
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. O'Leary
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY represented by Merrill C. Godfrey
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER &
FELD LLP
Robert S. Strauss Tower
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
14
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 15 of 76
(202) 887−4000
Fax: (202) 887−4288
Email: mgodfrey@akingump.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
NATIVE AMERICAN FINANCE represented by Merrill C. Godfrey
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
PENOBSCOT NATION represented by Merrill C. Godfrey
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF represented by Merrill C. Godfrey
THE POTAWATOMI (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
ALASKA FEDERATION OF represented by James Hardwick Lister
NATIVES, INC. BIRCH HORTON BITTNER AND
CHEROT, P.C.
1100 Connecticut Ave, NW
Suite 825
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 659−5800
Fax: (202) 659−1027
Email: jlister@dc.bhb.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Date Filed # Page Docket Text
04/17/2020 1 COMPLAINT against STEVEN MNUCHIN in his official capacity as
Secretary of U.S. Department of the Treasury ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number
BDCDC−7031496) filed by ALEUT COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL ISLAND,
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, AKIAK
NATIVE COMMUNITY, HOULTON BAND OF MALISEET INDIANS,
TULALIP TRIBES, ASA CARSARMIUT TRIBE. (Attachments: # 1 Civil
Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons)(Kanji, Riyaz) (Entered: 04/17/2020)
04/17/2020 Case Assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta. (adh, ) (Entered: 04/17/2020)
04/17/2020 2
15
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 16 of 76
SUMMONS (1) Issued Electronically as to STEVEN MNUCHIN.
(Attachment: # 1 Notice and Consent)(adh, ) (Entered: 04/17/2020)
04/20/2020 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary
Injunction by AKIAK NATIVE COMMUNITY, ALEUT COMMUNITY OF
ST. PAUL ISLAND, ASA CARSARMIUT TRIBE, CONFEDERATED
TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, HOULTON BAND OF
MALISEET INDIANS, TULALIP TRIBES (Attachments: # 1 Declaration
Akiak Native Communit, # 2 Declaration Aleut Community of St, # 3
Declaration Asacarsarmiut, # 4 Declaration Chehalis − Pickernell, # 5
Declaration HBMI − Sabattis, # 6 Declaration Tulalip − Gobin, # 7 Text of
Proposed Order, # 8 Declaration RAK Certificate of Counsel, # 9 Declaration
RAK 2nd Decl)(Kanji, Riyaz). Added MOTION for Preliminary Injunction on
4/20/2020 (eg). (Entered: 04/20/2020)
04/20/2020 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Jason C. Lynch on behalf of STEVEN MNUCHIN
(Lynch, Jason) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
04/20/2020 MINUTE ORDER. The parties shall meet and confer and, by 5:00 p.m. on
April 20, 2020, file a Joint Status Report that proposes a schedule for briefing
on Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Amit
P. Mehta on 04/20/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
04/20/2020 5 Joint STATUS REPORT and Proposed Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffs' 3
Motion by STEVEN MNUCHIN. (Lynch, Jason) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
04/20/2020 MINUTE ORDER setting the following schedule for further proceedings in
this matter: (1) Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction shall be filed on or before 5:00
p.m. on April 22, 2020; (2) Plaintiffs' Reply brief, if any, shall be filed on or
before 12:00 p.m. on April 23, 2020; and (3) a video conference hearing is set
for April 23, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. The court will circulate access information to
counsel. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/20/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered:
04/20/2020)
04/21/2020 MINUTE ORDER resetting the video conference hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion
for a Temporary Restraining Order to 3:00 p.m. on April 23, 2020. Should any
member of the public or media require access to the hearing, they should reach
out to the Courtroom Deputy, Mr. Douyon, at
Jean−Claude_Douyon@dcd.uscourts.gov for further instructions. Signed by
Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/21/2020. (lcapm2) Modified on 04/21/2020
(lcapm2). (Entered: 04/21/2020)
04/21/2020 6 Consent MOTION for Leave to File amicus brief re 3 MOTION for Temporary
Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by NATIONAL
CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS, AFFILIATED TRIBES OF
NORTHWEST INDIANS, All Pueblo Council of Governors, Arizona Indian
Gaming Association, California Nations Indian Gaming Association,
California Tribal Chairpersons Association, Great Plains Tribal Chairmens
Association, Inc., Inter Tribal Association of Arizona, Inc., Inter−Tribal
Council of the Five Civilized Tribes, Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes,
National Indian Gaming Association, United South and Eastern Tribes
Sovereignty Protection Fund (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smith,
Kaighn) Modified event on 4/23/2020 (znmw). (Entered: 04/21/2020)
16
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 17 of 76
04/21/2020 Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Opposition due by 5:00 pm on 4/22/2020. Reply
due by 12:00 pm on 4/23/2020. Motion Hearing set for 4/23/2020 at 3:00 PM
before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zjd) (Entered: 04/21/2020)
04/21/2020 7 AMENDED COMPLAINT against STEVEN MNUCHIN filed by TULALIP
TRIBES, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS
RESERVATION, ALEUT COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL ISLAND,
HOULTON BAND OF MALISEET INDIANS, AKIAK NATIVE
COMMUNITY, ASA CARSARMIUT TRIBE, PUEBLO OF PICURIS, ELK
VALLEY RANCHERIA, CALIFORNIA, SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE,
QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, NAVAJO NATION.(Kanji, Riyaz) (Entered:
04/21/2020)
04/22/2020 8 ORDER granting 6 Motion to File Amicus Brief. The Tribal Organizations
shall file their amicus brief by April 22, 2020. See attached Order for further
details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/22/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered:
04/22/2020)
04/22/2020 9 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' 3 Motion
for TRO/PI by STEVEN MNUCHIN (Lynch, Jason) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
04/22/2020 MINUTE ORDER granting 9 Defendant's Motion for an Extension of Time to
File a Response. The court will set a schedule for further briefing following a
telephonic conference on April 23, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. Members of the public or
media may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll−free public access line:
(877) 848−7030, access code 321−8747. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on
04/22/2020. (lcapm2). Modified on 4/22/2020 (lcapm2). (Entered: 04/22/2020)
04/22/2020 Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 4/23/2020 at 9:30 AM
before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zjd) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
04/22/2020 10 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Christine V.
Williams, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number BDCDC−7049323. Fee Status: Fee
Paid. by Alaska Native Village Association, ANCSA Regional Association
(Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, William)
(Entered: 04/22/2020)
04/22/2020 MINUTE ORDER vacating the April 23, 2020, 3:00 p.m. hearing on Plaintiffs'
Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on
04/22/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
04/22/2020 11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− J. Harrison
Powell II, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC−7049350. Fee Status: Fee
Paid. by ANCSA Regional Association (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Text
of Proposed Order)(Walker, William) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
04/22/2020 MINUTE ORDER granting 10 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
Christine V. Williams is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter
on behalf of Amici Curiae Alaska Native Village Corporation Association and
ANCSA Regional Association. Counsel should register for e−filing via
PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click
for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta o n 04/22/2020. (lcapm2)
(Entered: 04/22/2020)
04/22/2020
17
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 18 of 76
MINUTE ORDER granting 11 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
James Harrison Powell, II is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this
matter on behalf of Amici Curiae Alaska Native Village Corporation
Association and ANCSA Regional Association. Counsel should register for
e−filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR
83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Meh ta on
04/22/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
04/22/2020 12 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amici Curiae by ANCSA Regional
Association, Alaska Native Village Association (Attachments: # 1 Text of
Proposed Order)(Walker, William) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
04/22/2020 13 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by AHTNA, INC.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Brief, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Ken
Johns, # 3 Exhibit Proposed Order)(O'Leary, Michael) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
04/22/2020 14 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Appearance by William Kenneth
Walker on behalf of AKIAK NATIVE COMMUNITY, ANCSA Regional
Association (Walker, William) Modified on 4/24/2020 (znmw). (Entered:
04/22/2020)
04/22/2020 15 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Jonathan
Katchen, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC−7049884. Fee Status: Fee
Paid. by AHTNA, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Jonathan
Katchen, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Order)(O'Leary, Michael) (Entered:
04/22/2020)
04/22/2020 16 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by AKIAK NATIVE COMMUNITY
(Walker, William) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
04/22/2020 17 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Appearance by William Kenneth
Walker on behalf of Alaska Native Village Association (Walker, William)
Modified on 4/24/2020 (znmw). (Entered: 04/22/2020)
04/22/2020 18 Amended MOTION for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief with Consent by
ANCSA Regional Association, Alaska Native Village Association
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, William)
(Entered: 04/22/2020)
04/23/2020 MINUTE ORDER granting 15 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
Jonathan Katchen is hereby admitted pro hac vice in this matter on behalf of
Ahtna, Inc. Counsel should register for e−filing via PACER and file a
notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions.
Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/23/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered:
04/23/2020)
04/23/2020 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Telephone
Conference held on 4/23/2020. Defendant's Opposition due by 5:00 pm on
4/23/2020. Plaintiffs' Reply Brief due by 12:00 pm on 4/24/2020. Motion
Hearing set for 4/24/2020 at 3:00 PM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Should any
member of the public or media require access to the motion hearing, they
should reach out to the Courtroom Deputy, Mr. Douyon, at
Jean−Claude_Douyon@dcd.uscourts.gov for further instructions. (Court
Reporter: Lisa Moreira) (zjd) (Entered: 04/23/2020)
18
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 19 of 76
04/23/2020 MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to the Telephonic Scheduling Conference held
today, April 23, 2020, the court orders the following schedule for further
proceedings in this matter: (1) Defendant shall file its response to Plaintiffs'
Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order by 5 p.m. today, April 23, 2020; (2)
Plaintiffs shall file their reply, if any, by 12 p.m. on April 24, 2020; (3) a video
conference hearing on Plaintiffs' motion is set for April 24, 2020, at 3 p.m.; and
(4) Amici Tribal Governments shall file their amici curiae brief by 12 p.m.
today, April 23, 2020. The 13 Consent Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae
Brief by AHTNA, Inc., and the 18 Amended Motion for Leave to File Amici
Curiae Brief by ANCSA Regional Association and Alaska Native Village
Association are granted. Should any member of the public or media require
access to the April 24 hearing, they should reach out to the Courtroom Deputy,
Mr. Douyon, at Jean−Claude_Douyon@dcd.uscourts.gov for further
instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/23/2020. (lcapm2)
(Entered: 04/23/2020)
04/23/2020 20 AMICUS BRIEF re 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION
for Preliminary Injunction filed by ALEUT COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL
ISLAND, ASA CARSARMIUT TRIBE, AKIAK NATIVE COMMUNITY,
TULALIP TRIBES, HOULTON BAND OF MALISEET INDIANS,
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION by
AFFILIATED TRIBES OF NORTHWEST INDIANS, ALL PUEBLO
COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS, ARIZONA INDIAN GAMING
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA NATIONS INDIAN GAMING
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA TRIBAL CHAIRPERSON'S
ASSOCIATION, GREAT PLAINS TRIBAL CHAIRMEN'S ASSOCIATION,
INC., INTER TRIBAL ASSOCIATION OF ARIZONA, INC.,
INTER−TRIBAL COUNCIL OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES,
MIDWEST ALLIANCE OF SOVEREIGN TRIBES, NATIONAL
CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS, NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING
ASSOCIATION, UNITED SOUTH AND EASTERN TRIBES
SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION FUND. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Declaration of Maria Dadgar, Executive Director of the Inter Tribal
Association of Arizona, Inc, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Chuck Hoskin, Jr.,
Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation and President of the Inter−Tribal
Council of the Five Civilized Tribes, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Michael
Chavarria, Chairman of the All Pueblo Council of Governors, # 4 Exhibit
Declaration of Bo Mazzetti, Chairman of the California Tribal Chairpersons
Association, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Leonard Forsman, President of the
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, # 6 Exhibit Declaration of Yvette
Roubideaux)(Smith, Kaighn) Modified event title on 4/23/2020 (znmw).
(Entered: 04/23/2020)
04/23/2020 21 Memorandum in opposition to re 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by STEVEN MNUCHIN. (Lynch,
Jason) (Entered: 04/23/2020)
04/23/2020 22 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs
Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, NATIVE AMERICAN FINANCE
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, PENOBSCOT NATION, NOTTAWASEPPI
HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Lodged
Amicus Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Godfrey, Merrill) (Entered:
19
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 20 of 76
04/23/2020)
04/23/2020 23 AMICUS BRIEF by AHTNA, INC.. (znmw) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
04/23/2020 24 AMICUS BRIEF by ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, ANCSA
REGIONAL ASSOCIATION. (znmw) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
04/24/2020 NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Docket Entries 17 Notice of
Appearance and 14 Notice of Appearance were entered in error and counsel is
instructed to refile; each appearing counsel must file their own appearance
using individual login credentials. (znmw) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
04/24/2020 MINUTE ORDER granting 22 Motion for Leave to File to File Amicus Curiae
Brief. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/24/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered:
04/24/2020)
04/24/2020 25 AMICUS BRIEF by GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, NATIVE
AMERICAN FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, NOTTAWASEPPI
HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI, PENOBSCOT NATION. (eg)
(Entered: 04/24/2020)
04/24/2020 26 NOTICE of Appearance by Christine Williams on behalf of ALASKA
NATIVE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION (Williams, Christine) (Entered:
04/24/2020)
04/24/2020 27 NOTICE of Appearance by James Harrison Powell, II on behalf of ALASKA
NATIVE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION (Powell, James) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
04/24/2020 28 NOTICE of Appearance by Christine Williams on behalf of ANCSA
REGIONAL ASSOCIATION (Williams, Christine) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
04/24/2020 29 NOTICE of Appearance by James Harrison Powell, II on behalf of ANCSA
REGIONAL ASSOCIATION (Powell, James) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
04/24/2020 30 REPLY to opposition to motion re 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining
Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by AKIAK NATIVE
COMMUNITY, ALEUT COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL ISLAND,
ASA'CARSARMIUT TRIBE, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE
CHEHALIS RESERVATION, ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA, CALIFORNIA,
HOULTON BAND OF MALISEET INDIANS, NAVAJO NATION,
PUEBLO OF PICURIS, QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, SAN CARLOS
APACHE TRIBE, TULALIP TRIBES. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Kanji,
Riyaz) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
04/24/2020 31 NOTICE of Change of Address by William Kenneth Walker (Walker, William)
(Entered: 04/24/2020)
04/24/2020 MINUTE ORDER. Members of the public or media who wish to access the
hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order scheduled for
today, April 24, 2020, at 3:00 p.m., may now access the hearing by dialing the
court's toll−free public access line: (877) 848−7030, access code 321−8747.
Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/24/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered:
04/24/2020)
04/24/2020 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Motion
Hearing held on 4/24/2020 re 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
20
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 21 of 76
Preliminary Injunction. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered:
04/24/2020)
04/24/2020 32 NOTICE in Response to the Court's Questions at the Telephonic Hearing by
STEVEN MNUCHIN (Lynch, Jason) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
04/25/2020 33 NOTICE by ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION (Williams,
Christine) (Entered: 04/25/2020)
04/25/2020 34 MOTION to Correct Procedural Defect/Controlling Authority by ANCSA
REGIONAL ASSOCIATION (Williams, Christine) Modified on 4/28/2020 to
correct docket event/text (eg). (Entered: 04/25/2020)
04/27/2020 NOTICE OF ERROR re 31 Notice of Change of Address; emailed to
wkw@att.net, cc'd 17 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed
contained errors: 1. Counsel must change their address via Pacer (zeg, )
(Entered: 04/27/2020)
04/27/2020 35 REPLY to opposition to motion re 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining
Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by UTE TRIBE OF THE
UINTAH AND OURAY RESERVATION. (Rasmussen, Jeffrey) (Entered:
04/27/2020)
04/27/2020 36 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION as to 3 Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. See attached Memorandum
Opinion for further details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/27/2020.
(lcapm2) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
04/27/2020 37 ORDER. For the reasons stated in the 36 Memorandum Opinion, the court
grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction. See attached Order for further details.
Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/27/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered:
04/27/2020)
04/28/2020 MINUTE ORDER. The parties shall meet and confer and, by May 1, 2020, file
a Joint Status Report that proposes a schedule for further proceedings in this
matter. The Joint Status Report shall also update the court on any
developments in the disbursement of Title V funds to federally recognized
Indian tribes, as well as any funds withheld from ANCs pursuant to the court's
preliminary injunction order. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/28/2020.
(lcapm2) (Entered: 04/28/2020)
04/28/2020 38 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew Newman on behalf of ARTIC VILLAGE
COUNCIL, NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT,
NONDALTON TRIBAL COUNCIL, ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE (Newman,
Matthew) (Entered: 04/28/2020)
04/28/2020 Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5/1/2020. (zjd) (Entered:
04/28/2020)
04/28/2020 39 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan W Katchen on behalf of AHTNA, INC.
(Katchen, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/28/2020)
04/29/2020 40 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeremy J. Patterson on behalf of UTE TRIBE OF
THE UINTAH AND OURAY RESERVATION (Patterson, Jeremy) (Entered:
04/29/2020)
21
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 22 of 76
04/29/2020 41 TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC STATUS HEARING before Judge Amit P.
Mehta held on April 23, 2020; Page Numbers: 1−23. Date of Issuance:April
29, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa A. Moreira, RDR, CRR, Telephone
number (202) 354−3187, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the
Transcript Order Form
For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the
courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from t he court reporter referenced
above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other
transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased
from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have
twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to
redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the
transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction
after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers
specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 5/20/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for
5/30/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/28/2020.(Moreira, Lisa)
(Entered: 04/29/2020)
04/30/2020 42 TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC/VIDEOCONFERENCE HEARING ON
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RETRAINING ORDER PROCEEDINGS
before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on April 24, 2020; Page Numbers: 1−82.
Date of Issuance: April 30, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William
Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 354−3249. Transcripts may be ordered by
submitting the Transcript Order Form
For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at th e
courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced
above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other
transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased
from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have
twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to
redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the
transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction
after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers
specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 5/21/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for
5/31/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/29/2020.(wz) (Entered:
04/30/2020)
04/30/2020 43 MOTION to Intervene by AHTNA, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Declaration of Ken Johns, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Answer to Chehalis Plaintiffs'
Complaint, # 3 Exhibit Proposed Answer to Sioux Plaintiffs' Complaint, # 4
Exhibit Proposed Answer to Ute Indian Tribe Complaint, # 5 Rule 26.1
Certificate, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(O'Leary, Michael) (Entered:
22
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 23 of 76
04/30/2020)
05/01/2020 44 Joint STATUS REPORT pursuant to the Court's April 28, 2020, minute order
by STEVEN MNUCHIN. (Lynch, Jason) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
05/05/2020 45 MOTION to Intervene and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support
by Alaska Native Village Corporation Association, Inc., Association of
ANCSA Regional Corporation Presidents/CEO's, Inc. (Attachments: # 1
Declaration Aaron M. Schutt, # 2 Declaration Anthony Mallott, # 3 Declaration
Richard Glenn, # 4 Declaration Shuana Z. Hegna, # 5 Declaration Sherri
Buretta, # 6 Declaration Sophie Minich, # 7 Declaration Wayne Westlake, # 8
Declaration Nancy Andrew, # 9 Declaration Alfred Thomas Harris, # 10
Declaration Clifford Blair, # 11 Declaration Dean Gould, # 12 Declaration Ed
Herndon, # 13 Declaration Janine Avner, # 14 Declaration Kenneth A. Hughes
IV, # 15 Declaration Leo Barlow, # 16 Declaration Melissa M. Kookesh, # 17
Declaration Michele Christiansen, # 18 Declaration Patrick McCarty, # 19
Declaration Robert D. Mills, # 20 Declaration Ron Philemonoff, # 21
Declaration Thomas Kirk, # 22 Declaration Gail Schubert, # 23 Declaration
Thomas Mack, # 24 Declaration George Sam, # 25 Exhibit Ex. 25 − Proposed
Answer to Chehalis Complaint, # 26 Exhibit Ex. 26 − Propsed Answer to
Cheyenne River Complaint, # 27 Exhibit Ex. 27 − Proposed Answer to Ute
Tribe Complaint, # 28 ANVCA Rule 26.1 Disclosure, # 29 ARA Rule 26.1
Disclosure, # 30 Text of Proposed Order)(Wolff, Daniel) (Entered: 05/05/2020)
05/05/2020 46 MOTION to Intervene by CALISTA CORPORATION, Kwethluk,
Incorporated, Sea Lion Corporation, St. Marys Native Corporation, Napaskiak,
Incorporated, Akiachak, Limited (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Declaration of
A. Guy, # 2 Exhibit B − Declaration of G. Guy, # 3 Exhibit C − Declaration of
N. Andrew, # 4 Exhibit D − Declaration of M. Naneng, # 5 Exhibit E −
Declaration of M. Kaganak, # 6 Exhibit F − Declaration of J. George, # 7
Exhibit G − Proposed Answer to Chehalis Plaintiffs' Complaint, # 8 Exhibit H
− Proposed Answer to Sioux Plaintiffs' Complaint, # 9 Exhibit I − Proposed
Answer to Ute Indian Tribe Complaint, # 10 Rule 26.1 Certificate, # 11 Text of
Proposed Order)(Naresh, Ragan) (Entered: 05/05/2020)
05/05/2020 47 NOTICE of Appearance by Kirsten L. Nathanson on behalf of ALASKA
NATIVE VILLAGE CORPORATION ASSOCIATION, INC.,
ASSOCIATION OF ANCSA REGIONAL CORPORATION
PRESIDENTS/CEO'S, INC. (Nathanson, Kirsten) (Entered: 05/05/2020)
05/05/2020 MINUTE ORDER. The parties and Proposed Intervenors shall appear for a
telephonic scheduling conference on May 7, 2020, at 1:00 p.m. The courtroom
deputy shall distribute dial−in information to counsel. Members of the public
who wish to access the hearing may dial in to the court's toll−free public access
line: (877) 848−7030, access code 321−8747. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta
on 05/05/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered: 05/05/2020)
05/05/2020 48 NOTICE of Appearance by David Yolun Chung on behalf of ALASKA
NATIVE VILLAGE CORPORATION ASSOCIATION, INC.,
ASSOCIATION OF ANCSA REGIONAL CORPORATION
PRESIDENTS/CEO'S, INC. (Chung, David) (Entered: 05/05/2020)
05/05/2020 Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 5/7/2020 at 1:00 PM before
Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zjd) (Entered: 05/05/2020)
23
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 24 of 76
05/05/2020 49 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Rose M.
Weckenmann, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC−7093364. Fee Status:
Fee Paid. by CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE (Attachments: # 1
Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Ducheneaux, Nicole) (Entered:
05/05/2020)
05/05/2020 MINUTE ORDER granting 49 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
Rose M. Weckenmann is hereby admitted pro hac vice in this matter on behalf
of Plaintiff Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. Counsel should register for e−filing
via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a).
Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 05/05/2020.
(lcapm2) (Entered: 05/05/2020)
05/06/2020 50 NOTICE of Appearance by Rose Michele Weckenmann on behalf of
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE (Weckenmann, Rose) (Entered:
05/06/2020)
05/07/2020 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Telephone
Conference held on 5/7/2020. Plaintiff's Status Report due by 5/8/2020 at 4:00
pm. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zjd) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
05/07/2020 MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to the Telephonic Status Conference held today,
May 7, 2020, Plaintiffs shall file a Status Report by May 8, 2020, at 4:00 p.m.,
which informs the court whether Plaintiffs intend to oppose the pending
motions to intervene. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 05/07/2020. (lcapm2)
(Entered: 05/07/2020)
05/08/2020 51 WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO NOTICE 52 FILED 5/8/2020.....NOTICE of
Intent To Oppose Motions to Intervene by UTE TRIBE OF THE UINTAH
AND OURAY INDIAN RESERVATION re 46 MOTION to Intervene , 43
MOTION to Intervene , 45 MOTION to Intervene and Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in Support (Rasmussen, Jeffrey) Modified on 5/12/2020
(znmw). (Entered: 05/08/2020)
05/08/2020 52 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION by UTE TRIBE OF THE
UINTAH AND OURAY INDIAN RESERVATION re 51 Notice (Other),
(Rasmussen, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/08/2020)
05/08/2020 53 WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO NOTICE 54 FILED 5/8/2020.....NOTICE by
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE, ROSEBUD
SIOUX TRIBE (Ducheneaux, Nicole) Modified on 5/12/2020 (znmw).
(Entered: 05/08/2020)
05/08/2020 54 NOTICE of Conditional Withdrawal of Statement Regarding ANCs Motions
for Intervention by ARTIC VILLAGE COUNCIL, CHEYENNE RIVER
SIOUX TRIBE, NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL
GOVERNMENT, NONDALTON TRIBAL COUNCIL, OGLALA SIOUX
TRIBE, ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE re 53 Notice (Other) (Furlong, Wesley)
(Entered: 05/08/2020)
05/08/2020 55 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Notice Regarding Motions to Intervene
by AKIAK NATIVE COMMUNITY, ALEUT COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL
ISLAND, ASA'CARSARMIUT TRIBE, CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE,
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, ELK
VALLEY RANCHERIA, CALIFORNIA, HOULTON BAND OF MALISEET
24
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 25 of 76
INDIANS, NAVAJO NATION, OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE, PUEBLO OF
PICURIS, QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE, SAN
CARLOS APACHE TRIBE, TULALIP TRIBES, UTE TRIBE OF THE
UINTAH AND OURAY INDIAN RESERVATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of
Proposed Order)(Kanji, Riyaz) (Entered: 05/08/2020)
05/09/2020 MINUTE ORDER granting 55 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs shall
file their status report by Tuesday, May 12, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. Signed by Judge
Amit P. Mehta on 05/09/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered: 05/09/2020)
05/09/2020 Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs' Status Report due by 5/12/2020 at 4:00 PM.
(zjd) (Entered: 05/11/2020)
05/12/2020 56 NOTICE of Intent to Oppose Motions to Intervene by UTE TRIBE OF THE
UINTAH AND OURAY INDIAN RESERVATION re 46 MOTION to
Intervene , 43 MOTION to Intervene , 45 MOTION to Intervene and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support (Bassett, Frances) (Entered:
05/12/2020)
05/12/2020 57 STATUS REPORT by AKIAK NATIVE COMMUNITY, ALEUT
COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL ISLAND, ARTIC VILLAGE COUNCIL,
ASA'CARSARMIUT TRIBE, CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE,
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, ELK
VALLEY RANCHERIA, CALIFORNIA, HOULTON BAND OF MALISEET
INDIANS, NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT,
NAVAJO NATION, NONDALTON TRIBAL COUNCIL, OGLALA SIOUX
TRIBE, PUEBLO OF PICURIS, QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, ROSEBUD
SIOUX TRIBE, SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE, TULALIP TRIBES.
(Kanji, Riyaz) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
05/12/2020 58 RESPONSE re 57 Status Report,, and Proposal for Further Proceedings filed
by STEVEN MNUCHIN. (Lynch, Jason) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
05/13/2020 MINUTE ORDER. The schedule for these consolidated proceedings shall be as
follows. The Ute Tribe Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated response to all
pending motions to intervene by May 14, 2020. The Proposed Intervenors shall
file their respective reply briefs by May 19, 2020. To be clear, the Ute Tribe
Plaintiffs' opposition to intervention extends only to the motions to intervene in
their case. See Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118, 1127−28 (2018). Permissive
intervention is not opposed in the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis
Reservation and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe matters and therefore is granted.
The Secretary shall produce the administrative record by May 22, 2020. All
parties shall file cross−motions for summary judgment by May 29, 2020. The
Plaintiff groups shall file a single consolidated summary judgment brief, and so
too shall the Intervenor−Defendants. Cross−motions for summary judgment for
each grouping of parties (Plaintiffs, Intervenor−Defendants, and the Secretary)
shall be no more than 60 double−spaced pages. All parties shall file combined
responses/replies by June 9, 2020. The Plaintiff groups shall file a single
consolidated response/reply, and so too shall the Intervenor−Defendants.
Responses/replies for each grouping of parties shall be no more than 35
double−spaced pages. The parties shall file the Joint Appendix required by
Local Civil Rule 7(n)(1) by June 10, 2020. Oral argument on the
cross−motions is set for June 12, 2020, at 1:00 p.m. Members of the public or
media may access the hearing by dialing the court's toll−free public access line:
25
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 26 of 76
(877) 848−7030, access code 321−8747. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on
05/13/2020. (lcapm2) Modified on 6/11/2020 (lcapm2). (Entered: 05/13/2020)
05/13/2020 Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Consolidated Response due by 5/14/2020.
Reply Briefs due by 5/19/2020. Administrative Record due by 5/22/2020.
Cross−Motions for Summary Judgment due by 5/29/2020. Combined
Responses/Replies due by 6/9/2020. Joint Appendix due by 6/10/2020. Motion
Hearing set for 6/12/2020 at 1:00 PM before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zjd)
(Entered: 05/13/2020)
05/14/2020 59 Memorandum in opposition re 46 MOTION to Intervene , 43 MOTION to
Intervene , 45 MOTION to Intervene and Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support filed by UTE TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY
INDIAN RESERVATION. (Rasmussen, Jeffrey) Modified on docket
event/text 5/15/2020 (eg). (Entered: 05/15/2020)
05/19/2020 60 TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS before
Judge Amit P. Mehta held on May 7, 2020; Page Numbers: 1−35. Date of
Issuance: May 19, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Zaremba;
Telephone number: (202) 354−3249. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting
the Transcript Order Form
For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the
courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the cour t reporter referenced
above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other
transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased
from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have
twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to
redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the
transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction
after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers
specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 6/9/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for
6/19/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/17/2020.(wz) (Entered:
05/19/2020)
05/19/2020 61 NOTICE of Appearance by Paul Clement on behalf of AKIACHAK,
LIMITED, CALISTA CORPORATION, KWETHLUK, INCORPORATED,
NAPASKIAK, INCORPORATED, SEA LION CORPORATION, ST.
MARY'S NATIVE CORPORATION (Clement, Paul) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
05/19/2020 62 REPLY to opposition to motion re 46 MOTION to Intervene filed by
AKIACHAK, LIMITED, CALISTA CORPORATION, KWETHLUK,
INCORPORATED, NAPASKIAK, INCORPORATED, SEA LION
CORPORATION, ST. MARY'S NATIVE CORPORATION. (Clement, Paul)
(Entered: 05/19/2020)
05/19/2020 63 ENTERED IN ERROR.....RESPONSE re 45 MOTION to Intervene and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed by ALASKA
NATIVE VILLAGE CORPORATION ASSOCIATION, INC., ANCSA
REGIONAL ASSOCIATION. (Wolff, Daniel) Modified on 5/20/2020 to enter
26
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 27 of 76
in error at the request of the filer. (ztnr) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
05/19/2020 64 ENTERED IN ERROR.....REPLY re 45 MOTION to Intervene and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed by ALASKA
NATIVE VILLAGE CORPORATION ASSOCIATION, INC., ANCSA
REGIONAL ASSOCIATION. (Wolff, Daniel). Modified on 5/20/2020 to enter
in error at the request of the filer (eg). (Entered: 05/19/2020)
05/19/2020 65 REPLY to opposition to motion re 45 MOTION to Intervene and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed by ALASKA
NATIVE VILLAGE CORPORATION ASSOCIATION, INC.,
ASSOCIATION OF ANCSA REGIONAL CORPORATION
PRESIDENTS/CEO'S, INC.. (Wolff, Daniel) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
05/19/2020 66 NOTICE of Appearance by Paul W. Spruhan on behalf of NAVAJO NATION
(Spruhan, Paul) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
05/19/2020 67 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan W Katchen on behalf of AHTNA, INC.
(Katchen, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
05/19/2020 68 REPLY to opposition to motion re 43 MOTION to Intervene filed by AHTNA,
INC.. (O'Leary, Michael) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
05/19/2020 69 MOTION for Leave to File surreply brief by UTE TRIBE OF THE UINTAH
AND OURAY INDIAN RESERVATION (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed
surreply)(Rasmussen, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/20/2020)
05/20/2020 70 ORDER granting the Motions to Intervene, ECF Nos. 43 , 45 , and 46 .
Plaintiff Ute Tribe's 69 Motion for Leave to File Surreply is denied as moot.
See the attached Order for further details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Metha on
05/20/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered: 05/20/2020)
05/22/2020 71 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Index & Certification by STEVEN
MNUCHIN. (Attachments: # 1 Kowalski AR Certification)(Lynch, Jason)
(Entered: 05/22/2020)
05/26/2020 72 PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE re Order,,,,,, Plaintiffs' Request for
Separate Briefing by AKIAK NATIVE COMMUNITY, ALEUT
COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL ISLAND, ARTIC VILLAGE COUNCIL,
ASA'CARSARMIUT TRIBE, CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE,
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, ELK
VALLEY RANCHERIA, CALIFORNIA, HOULTON BAND OF MALISEET
INDIANS, NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT,
NAVAJO NATION, NONDALTON TRIBAL COUNCIL, OGLALA SIOUX
TRIBE, PUEBLO OF PICURIS, QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, ROSEBUD
SIOUX TRIBE, SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE, TULALIP TRIBES, UTE
TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY INDIAN RESERVATION.
(Furlong, Wesley) (Entered: 05/26/2020)
05/27/2020 MINUTE ORDER granting 72 Plaintiffs' Request for Separate Briefing.
Plaintiffs may file two summary judgment briefs totaling no more than 60
pages. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 05/27/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered:
05/27/2020)
05/28/2020 73 NOTICE of Change of Firm Affiliation and Address by UTE TRIBE OF THE
UINTAH AND OURAY INDIAN RESERVATION (Bassett, Frances)
27
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 28 of 76
(Entered: 05/28/2020)
05/29/2020 NOTICE OF ERROR re 73 Notice (Other); emailed to fbassett@ndnlaw.com,
cc'd 56 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1.
All address changes must be done thru pacer. (zeg, ) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
05/29/2020 74 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs'
Motions for Summary Judgment by AFFILIATED TRIBES OF NORTHWEST
INDIANS, ARIZONA INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA
NATIONS INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION, GREAT PLAINS TRIBAL
CHAIRMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC., INTER TRIBAL ASSOCIATION OF
ARIZONA, INC., MIDWEST ALLIANCE OF SOVEREIGN TRIBES,
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS, NATIONAL INDIAN
GAMING ASSOCIATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order
Proposed Order)(Smith, Kaighn) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
05/29/2020 MINUTE ORDER granting 74 Consent Motion for Leave to File to File
Amicus Brief. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 05/29/2020. (lcapm2)
(Entered: 05/29/2020)
05/29/2020 75 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by ALASKA
FEDERATION OF NATIVES, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Local Rule 7.1
Certificate, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lister, James) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
05/29/2020 76 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment by ARTIC VILLAGE COUNCIL,
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE
TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, NAVAJO NATION, NONDALTON TRIBAL
COUNCIL, OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE, ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE, UTE
TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY INDIAN RESERVATION
(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3
Declaration Frazier, # 4 Exhibit Frazier, # 5 Exhibit Frazier, # 6 Exhibit
Frazier, # 7 Exhibit Frazier, # 8 Exhibit Frazier, # 9 Exhibit Frazier, # 10
Exhibit Frazier, # 11 Exhibit Frazier, # 12 Exhibit Frazier, # 13 Exhibit Frazier,
# 14 Declaration Herman, # 15 Exhibit Herman, # 16 Exhibit Herman, # 17
Exhibit Herman, # 18 Exhibit Herman, # 19 Declaration Yatlin, # 20
Declaration Thumma, # 21 Exhibit Thumma, # 22 Declaration Alexie, # 23
Exhibit Alexie)(Ducheneaux, Nicole) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
05/29/2020 77 MOTION for Summary Judgment by AKIAK NATIVE COMMUNITY,
ALEUT COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL ISLAND, ASA'CARSARMIUT
TRIBE, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION,
ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA, CALIFORNIA, HOULTON BAND OF
MALISEET INDIANS, NAVAJO NATION, PUEBLO OF PICURIS,
QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE, TULALIP
TRIBES (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Kanji, Riyaz)
(Entered: 05/29/2020)
05/29/2020 78 MOTION for Summary Judgment by AHTNA, INC., AKIACHAK, LIMITED,
ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE CORPORATION ASSOCIATION, INC.,
ASSOCIATION OF ANCSA REGIONAL CORPORATION
PRESIDENTS/CEO'S, INC., CALISTA CORPORATION, KWETHLUK,
INCORPORATED, NAPASKIAK, INCORPORATED, SEA LION
CORPORATION, ST. MARY'S NATIVE CORPORATION (Attachments: # 1
Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration S. Minich Supp. Decl., # 3 Text of
28
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 29 of 76
Proposed Order)(Wolff, Daniel) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
05/29/2020 79 MOTION for Summary Judgment by STEVEN MNUCHIN (Attachments: # 1
Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1 − 1977 Final Report, # 3 Text of
Proposed Order)(Lynch, Jason) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
05/29/2020 80 LCvR 26.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and
Financial Interests by ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES, INC. (eg)
(Entered: 06/01/2020)
05/31/2020 MINUTE ORDER granting 75 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amicus
Curiae Brief. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 05/31/2020. (lcapm2)
(Entered: 05/31/2020)
06/04/2020 81 AMICUS BRIEF re 79 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 78 MOTION for
Summary Judgment , 76 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment , 77
MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ALASKA FEDERATION OF
NATIVES, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Local Rule 7.1
Certificate)(Lister, James) Modified docket event/text on 6/8/2020 (eg).
(Entered: 06/04/2020)
06/04/2020 82 AMICUS BRIEF re 76 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by
ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE, NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL
GOVERNMENT, CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, NAVAJO NATION,
UTE TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY INDIAN RESERVATION,
OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE, NONDALTON TRIBAL COUNCIL, ARTIC
VILLAGE COUNCIL, 77 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by
QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, PUEBLO OF PICURIS, CONFEDERATED
TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, ASA'CARSARMIUT
TRIBE, ALEUT COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL ISLAND, NAVAJO
NATION, AKIAK NATIVE COMMUNITY, TULALIP TRIBES, SAN
CARLOS APACHE TRIBE, HOULTON BAND OF MALISEET INDIANS,
ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA, CALIFORNIA by AFFILIATED TRIBES OF
NORTHWEST INDIANS, ALL PUEBLO COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS,
ARIZONA INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA NATIONS
INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA TRIBAL
CHAIRPERSON'S ASSOCIATION, GREAT PLAINS TRIBAL
CHAIRMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC., INTER TRIBAL ASSOCIATION OF
ARIZONA, INC., INTER−TRIBAL COUNCIL OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED
TRIBES, MIDWEST ALLIANCE OF SOVEREIGN TRIBES, NATIONAL
CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS, NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING
ASSOCIATION, UNITED SOUTH AND EASTERN TRIBES
SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION FUND. (Smith, Kaighn) Modified event title
on 6/9/2020 (znmw). (Entered: 06/04/2020)
06/04/2020 85 LCvR 26.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and
Financial Interests by ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES, INC. (eg)
(Entered: 06/09/2020)
06/08/2020 MINUTE ORDER regarding the June 12, 2020, hearing on the parties'
cross−motions for summary judgment. One lawyer shall present argument on
behalf of each grouping of parties (Plaintiffs, Intervenor−Defendants, and the
Secretary). In light of the comprehensive briefing presented by the parties, the
court will not hear argument by any amici curiae. Signed by Judge Amit P.
29
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 30 of 76
Mehta on 06/08/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
06/08/2020 83 Joint MOTION to Expedite by AKIAK NATIVE COMMUNITY, ALEUT
COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL ISLAND, ASA'CARSARMIUT TRIBE,
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE
CHEHALIS RESERVATION, HOULTON BAND OF MALISEET INDIANS,
NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, NAVAJO
NATION, NONDALTON TRIBAL COUNCIL, OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE,
PUEBLO OF PICURIS, QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, ROSEBUD SIOUX
TRIBE, SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE, TULALIP TRIBES (Attachments:
# 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ducheneaux, Nicole) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
06/08/2020 84 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by AKIAK NATIVE
COMMUNITY, ALEUT COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL ISLAND, ARTIC
VILLAGE COUNCIL, ASA'CARSARMIUT TRIBE, CHEYENNE RIVER
SIOUX TRIBE, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS
RESERVATION, ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA, CALIFORNIA, HOULTON
BAND OF MALISEET INDIANS, NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE
TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, NAVAJO NATION, NONDALTON TRIBAL
COUNCIL, OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE, PUEBLO OF PICURIS, QUINAULT
INDIAN NATION, ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE, SAN CARLOS APACHE
TRIBE, TULALIP TRIBES, UTE TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY
INDIAN RESERVATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed
Order)(Ducheneaux, Nicole) Modified event title on 6/9/2020 (znmw).
(Entered: 06/08/2020)
06/08/2020 MINUTE ORDER granting 84 Motion for Separate Briefing and Additional
Pages. Plaintiffs may file two response/reply briefs that do not exceed a
combined total of fifty pages. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 06/08/2020.
(lcapm2) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
06/09/2020 86 RESPONSE re 76 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment , 77 MOTION for
Summary Judgment filed by AHTNA, INC., AKIACHAK, LIMITED,
ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE CORPORATION ASSOCIATION, INC.,
ASSOCIATION OF ANCSA REGIONAL CORPORATION
PRESIDENTS/CEO'S, INC., CALISTA CORPORATION, KWETHLUK,
INCORPORATED, NAPASKIAK, INCORPORATED, SEA LION
CORPORATION, ST. MARY'S NATIVE CORPORATION. (Attachments: #
1 Declaration S. Buretta Supp. Decl.)(Wolff, Daniel) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
06/09/2020 87 RESPONSE re 79 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 78 MOTION for
Summary Judgment , 77 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by AKIAK
NATIVE COMMUNITY, ALEUT COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL ISLAND,
ASA'CARSARMIUT TRIBE, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE
CHEHALIS RESERVATION, ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA, CALIFORNIA,
HOULTON BAND OF MALISEET INDIANS, NAVAJO NATION,
PUEBLO OF PICURIS, QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, SAN CARLOS
APACHE TRIBE, TULALIP TRIBES. (Kanji, Riyaz) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
06/09/2020 88 RESPONSE re 76 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment , 77 MOTION for
Summary Judgment filed by STEVEN MNUCHIN. (Lynch, Jason) (Entered:
06/09/2020)
06/09/2020 89
30
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 31 of 76
RESPONSE re 79 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 78 MOTION for
Summary Judgment , 76 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment
Response/Reply in Support of Joint Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
ARTIC VILLAGE COUNCIL, CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE,
NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, NAVAJO
NATION, NONDALTON TRIBAL COUNCIL, OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE,
ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE, UTE TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY
INDIAN RESERVATION. (Furlong, Wesley) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
06/10/2020 90 JOINT APPENDIX by AKIAK NATIVE COMMUNITY, ALEUT
COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL ISLAND, ASA'CARSARMIUT TRIBE,
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, ELK
VALLEY RANCHERIA, CALIFORNIA, HOULTON BAND OF MALISEET
INDIANS, NAVAJO NATION, PUEBLO OF PICURIS, QUINAULT
INDIAN NATION, SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE, TULALIP TRIBES.
(Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Kanji, Riyaz) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
06/11/2020 91 MOTION to Divide Argument Time by AHTNA, INC., AKIACHAK,
LIMITED, ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE CORPORATION ASSOCIATION,
INC., ARTIC VILLAGE COUNCIL, ASSOCIATION OF ANCSA
REGIONAL CORPORATION PRESIDENTS/CEO'S, INC., CALISTA
CORPORATION, CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, KWETHLUK,
INCORPORATED, NAPASKIAK, INCORPORATED, NATIVE VILLAGE
OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, NONDALTON TRIBAL
COUNCIL, OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE, ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE, SEA
LION CORPORATION, ST. MARY'S NATIVE CORPORATION
(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wolff, Daniel) (Entered:
06/11/2020)
06/11/2020 MINUTE ORDER granting 91 Motion to Divide Argument Time. The court
also will afford the Ute Tribe Plaintiffs time for argument, if they wish to
present one. Members of the public or media may access the hearing by dialing
the court's toll−free public access line: (877) 848−7030, access code 321−8747.
Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 06/11/2020. (lcapm2) Modified on
6/11/2020 (lcapm2). (Entered: 06/11/2020)
06/12/2020 Minute Entry for proceedings held via video conference before Judge Amit P.
Mehta: Motion Hearing held on 6/12/2020 re 76 77 78 79 Cross−Motions for
Summary Judgment. Arguments heard and taken under advisement. (Court
Reporter: William Zaremba)(zjd) Modified on 6/12/2020 (zjd). (Entered:
06/12/2020)
06/16/2020 92 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by AKIAK NATIVE
COMMUNITY, ALEUT COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL ISLAND,
ASA'CARSARMIUT TRIBE, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE
CHEHALIS RESERVATION, ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA, CALIFORNIA,
HOULTON BAND OF MALISEET INDIANS, NAVAJO NATION,
PUEBLO OF PICURIS, QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, SAN CARLOS
APACHE TRIBE, TULALIP TRIBES (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Second
Amended Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Kanji, Riyaz) (Entered:
06/16/2020)
06/17/2020 MINUTE ORDER granting 92 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint.
Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 06/17/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered:
31
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 32 of 76
06/17/2020)
06/17/2020 93 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against STEVEN MNUCHIN filed by
PUEBLO OF PICURIS, SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE, TULALIP
TRIBES, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS
RESERVATION, NAVAJO NATION, ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA,
CALIFORNIA, ALEUT COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL ISLAND, HOULTON
BAND OF MALISEET INDIANS, AKIAK NATIVE COMMUNITY,
QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, ASA'CARSARMIUT TRIBE.(eg) (Entered:
06/17/2020)
06/17/2020 94 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING VIA VIDEOCONFERENCING
PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on June 12, 2020; Page
Numbers: 1−145. Date of Issuance: June 17, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber:
William Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 354−3249. Transcripts may be
ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form
For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the
courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced
above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other
transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased
from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have
twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to
redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the
transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction
after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers
specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 7/8/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for
7/18/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/15/2020.(wz) (Entered:
06/17/2020)
06/24/2020 95 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by ARTIC VILLAGE COUNCIL,
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE
TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, NONDALTON TRIBAL COUNCIL, OGLALA
SIOUX TRIBE, ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE (Attachments: # 1 Proposed
Amended Complaint)(Ducheneaux, Nicole) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
06/25/2020 MINUTE ORDER granting 95 Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Plaintiffs' Motion
for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Amit P. Metha
on 06/25/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
06/25/2020 96 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against STEVEN MNUCHIN filed by
ARTIC VILLAGE COUNCIL, OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE, NATIVE
VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, NONDALTON
TRIBAL COUNCIL, ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE, CHEYENNE RIVER
SIOUX TRIBE.(eg) (Entered: 06/26/2020)
06/26/2020 97 MEMORANDUM OPINION granting the Secretary's and
Defendant−Intervenors' Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 79 and 78 ,
and denying Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 76 and 77 .
See the attached Memorandum Opinion for further details. Signed by Judge
32
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 33 of 76
Amit P. Mehta on 06/26/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered: 06/26/2020)
06/26/2020 98 ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the 97 Memorandum Opinion, the court
grants 79 the Secretary's and 78 Defendant−Intervenors' Motions for Summary
Judgment, and enters judgment in favor of Defendants in each of the
consolidated cases. The preliminary injunction entered on April 27, 2020, ECF
No. 37 , is hereby dissolved. See the attached Order for further details. Signed
by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 06/26/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered: 06/26/2020)
06/29/2020 99 MOTION for Leave to File Injunction Pending Appeal by AKIAK NATIVE
COMMUNITY, ALEUT COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL ISLAND,
ASA'CARSARMIUT TRIBE, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE
CHEHALIS RESERVATION, ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA, CALIFORNIA,
HOULTON BAND OF MALISEET INDIANS, NAVAJO NATION,
PUEBLO OF PICURIS, QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, SAN CARLOS
APACHE TRIBE, TULALIP TRIBES (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed
Order)(Kanji, Riyaz) (Entered: 06/29/2020)
06/29/2020 MINUTE ORDER. To ensure that Plaintiff Confederated Tribes' Motion for
Injunction Pending Appeal receives the court's full consideration, Defendant
Secretary of Treasury shall provide the court at least one business day's notice
before he disburses any CARES Act funds designated for Alaska regional or
village corporations. The parties shall meet and confer and advise the court by
July 1, 2020, whether any defendant opposes the requested injunction pending
appeal and, if there is such objection, propose a briefing schedule. Signed by
Judge Amit P. Mehta on 06/29/2020. (lcapm2) (Entered: 06/29/2020)
06/29/2020 Set/Reset Deadlines: Meet & Confer Statement due by 7/1/2020. (zjd)
(Entered: 06/29/2020)
07/01/2020 100 MOTION for Joinder by UTE TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY
INDIAN RESERVATION re 99 MOTION for Leave to File Injunction
Pending Appeal (Rasmussen, Jeffrey) Modified docket event/text on 7/2/2020
(eg). (Entered: 07/01/2020)
07/01/2020 101 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, filed by STEVEN
MNUCHIN. (Lynch, Jason) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
07/01/2020 102 RESPONSE re 99 MOTION for Leave to File Injunction Pending Appeal filed
by AKIACHAK, LIMITED, CALISTA CORPORATION, KWETHLUK,
INCORPORATED, NAPASKIAK, INCORPORATED, SEA LION
CORPORATION, ST. MARY'S NATIVE CORPORATION. (Clement, Paul)
(Entered: 07/01/2020)
07/01/2020 103 RESPONSE re 99 MOTION for Leave to File Injunction Pending Appeal filed
by STEVEN MNUCHIN. (Lynch, Jason) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
07/01/2020 104 RESPONSE re 99 MOTION for Leave to File Injunction Pending Appeal filed
by ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE CORPORATION ASSOCIATION, INC.,
ASSOCIATION OF ANCSA REGIONAL CORPORATION
PRESIDENTS/CEO'S, INC.. (Wolff, Daniel) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
07/01/2020 105 RESPONSE re 99 MOTION for Leave to File Injunction Pending Appeal filed
by AHTNA, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Ken
Johns)(O'Leary, Michael) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
33
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 34 of 76
07/03/2020 106 RESPONSE re 99 MOTION for Leave to File Injunction Pending Appeal filed
by AKIAK NATIVE COMMUNITY, ALEUT COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL
ISLAND, ASA'CARSARMIUT TRIBE, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE
CHEHALIS RESERVATION, ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA, CALIFORNIA,
HOULTON BAND OF MALISEET INDIANS, NAVAJO NATION,
PUEBLO OF PICURIS, QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, SAN CARLOS
APACHE TRIBE, TULALIP TRIBES. (Kanji, Riyaz) (Entered: 07/03/2020)
07/07/2020 107 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 99 Confederated Tribes
Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal. The court's Order of June 26,
2020, ECF No. 98 , is hereby stayed until the earlier of September 15, 2020, or
resolution of this matter by a three−judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, so long as
Plaintiffs file a notice of appeal and seek expedited review by July 14, 2020.
See the attached Memorandum Opinion for further details. Signed by Judge
Amit P. Mehta on 07/07/2020. (lcapm2) Modified on 7/7/2020 (lcapm2).
(Entered: 07/07/2020)
07/07/2020 Set/Reset Deadlines: Notice of Appeal due by 7/14/2020. (zjd) (Entered:
07/07/2020)
07/07/2020 108 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ALASKA NATIVE
VILLAGE CORPORATION ASSOCIATION, INC., ASSOCIATION OF
ANCSA REGIONAL CORPORATION PRESIDENTS/CEO'S, INC.. Attorney
Christine Williams terminated. (Williams, Christine) (Entered: 07/07/2020)
07/07/2020 109 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ALASKA NATIVE
VILLAGE CORPORATION ASSOCIATION, INC., ASSOCIATION OF
ANCSA REGIONAL CORPORATION PRESIDENTS/CEO'S, INC.. Attorney
James Harrison Powell, II terminated. (Williams, Christine) (Entered:
07/07/2020)
07/08/2020 110 ERRATA by ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE CORPORATION
ASSOCIATION, INC., ASSOCIATION OF ANCSA REGIONAL
CORPORATION PRESIDENTS/CEO'S, INC. 109 Notice of Withdrawal of
Appearance filed by ASSOCIATION OF ANCSA REGIONAL
CORPORATION PRESIDENTS/CEO'S, INC., ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE
CORPORATION ASSOCIATION, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Errata Consent by
ANVCA)(Williams, Christine) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/13/2020 111 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 98 Order, 97
Memorandum & Opinion, by UTE TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY
INDIAN RESERVATION. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number
ADCDC−7333262. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified.
(Rasmussen, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
07/14/2020 112 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum
Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee
was paid this date re 111 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court,. (eg) (Entered:
07/14/2020)
07/14/2020 113 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 97 Memorandum &
Opinion, by AKIAK NATIVE COMMUNITY, ALEUT COMMUNITY OF
ST. PAUL ISLAND, ASA'CARSARMIUT TRIBE, CONFEDERATED
TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, ELK VALLEY
RANCHERIA, CALIFORNIA, HOULTON BAND OF MALISEET
34
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 117 Filed 07/15/20 Page 35 of 76
INDIANS, NAVAJO NATION, PUEBLO OF PICURIS, QUINAULT
INDIAN NATION, SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE, TULALIP TRIBES.
Filing fee $ 505, receipt number ADCDC−7336116. Fee Status: Fee Paid.
Parties have been notified. (Kanji, Riyaz) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/2020 114 ERRATA by UTE TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY INDIAN
RESERVATION 111 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court, filed by UTE
TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY INDIAN RESERVATION.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ute Indian Tribe's Corrected Notice of
Appeal)(Rasmussen, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/2020 115 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum
Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee
was paid this date re 113 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court,. (eg) (Entered:
07/14/2020)
07/14/2020 USCA Case Number 20−5204 for 111 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court,
filed by UTE TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY INDIAN
RESERVATION. (zrdj) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/2020 USCA Case Number 20−5205 for 113 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court,
filed by QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, PUEBLO OF PICURIS,
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION,
ASA'CARSARMIUT TRIBE, ALEUT COMMUNITY OF ST. PAUL
ISLAND, NAVAJO NATION, AKIAK NATIVE COMMUNITY, TULALIP
TRIBES, SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE, HOULTON BAND OF
MALISEET INDIANS, ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA, CALIFORNIA. (zrdj)
(Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/2020 116 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT by CHEYENNE RIVER
SIOUX TRIBE. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number ADCDC−7338328. Fee
Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Ducheneaux, Nicole) (Entered:
07/14/2020)
35
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document117
116 Filed
Filed07/15/20
07/14/20 Page
Page36
1 of 3
76
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE
CHEHALIS RESERVATION et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 1:20-cv-1002-APM
STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 1:20-cv-01059-APM
STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH
AND OURAY INDIAN RESERVATION,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:20-cv-01070-APM
STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his official capacity, CONSOLIDATED CASES
Defendant.
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Plaintiffs in Case No. 1:20-cv-01059-APM—Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Nondalton Tribal Council, Arctic Village Council, and Native
Village of Venetie (collectively “Cheyenne River Sioux Plaintiffs”)—appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the order and final judgment entered
in this action on June 26, 2020, ECF No. 98, and all other orders and rulings entered in this case.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14th day of July, 2020.
1
36
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document117
116 Filed
Filed07/15/20
07/14/20 Page
Page37
2 of 3
76
/s/ Nicole E. Ducheneaux
/s/ Rose Weckenmann
Nicole E. Ducheneaux (D.C. Bar No. NE001)
Rose Weckenmann (pro hac vice)
BIG FIRE LAW & POLICY GROUP LLP
1404 South Fort Crook Road
Bellevue, NE 68005
Telephone: (531) 466-8725
Facsimile: (531) 466-8792
Email: nducheneaux@bigfirelaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
/s/ Natalie A. Landreth
/s/ Erin C. Dougherty Lynch
/s/ Matthew N. Newman
/s/ Wesley James Furlong
/s/ Megan R. Condon
Natalie A. Landreth (D.D.C. Bar No.
AK0001) Erin C. Dougherty Lynch (pro hac
vice) Matthew N. Newman (pro hac vice)
Wesley James Furlong (D.D.C. Bar No. AK0003)
Megan R Condon (pro hac vice)
NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
745 West 4th Avenue, Suite 502
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-2466
Facsimile: (907) 276-
2466 Email:
landreth@narf.org
dougherty@narf.org
mnewman@narf.org
wfurlong@narf.org
mcondon@narf.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs Rosebud Sioux Tribe,
Nondalton Tribal Council, Arctic Village
Council, Native Village of Venetie Tribal
Government.
2
37
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document117
116 Filed
Filed07/15/20
07/14/20 Page
Page38
3 of 3
76
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 14th day of July, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing
CHEYENNE RIVER PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL with the Clerk of the Court
for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by using the CM/ECF system.
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be
accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
/s/ Nicole E. Ducheneaux
Nicole E. Ducheneaux (D.C. Bar No.
NE001) BIG FIRE LAW & POLICY
GROUP LLP
1404 South Fort Crook
Road Bellevue, NE 68005
Telephone: (531) 466-8725
Facsimile: (531) 466-8792
Email: nducheneaux@bigfirelaw.com
3
38
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APMDocument
Document117
98 Filed
Filed07/15/20
06/26/20 Page
Page 1
39of
of276
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE )
CHEHALIS RESERVATION, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 20-cv-01002 (APM)
)
STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his official capacity )
as Secretary of the Treasury, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, et al. )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 20-cv-01059 (APM)
)
STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his official capacity )
as Secretary of the Treasury, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
UTE TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND )
OURAY RESERVATION, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 20-cv-01070 (APM)
)
STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his official capacity )
as Secretary of the Treasury, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the court’s Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 97, the court grants
the Secretary’s and Defendant-Intervenors’ Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 78 and 79,
39
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APMDocument
Document117
98 Filed
Filed07/15/20
06/26/20 Page
Page 2
40of
of276
and denies Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 76 and 77, and enters judgment
in favor of Defendants in each of the consolidated cases. The preliminary injunction entered on
April 27, 2020, ECF No. 37, is hereby dissolved.
This is a final, appealable order.
Dated: June 26, 2020 Amit P. Mehta
United States District Court Judge
2
40
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document117
97 Filed 06/26/20
07/15/20 Page 1
41ofof36
76
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE )
CHEHALIS RESERVATION, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 20-cv-01002 (APM)
)
STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his official capacity )
as Secretary of the Treasury, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, et al. )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 20-cv-01059 (APM)
)
STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his official capacity )
as Secretary of the Treasury, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
UTE TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND )
OURAY RESERVATION, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 20-cv-01070 (APM)
)
STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his official capacity )
as Secretary of the Treasury, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Under Title V of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act,
Congress appropriated $8 billion for “Tribal governments” to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
41
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document117
97 Filed 06/26/20
07/15/20 Page 2
42ofof36
76
This consolidated case concerns who qualifies as a “Tribal government” under the CARES Act.
Plaintiffs are a group of federally recognized tribes from the lower 48 states and Alaska; they ask
this court to permanently enjoin the Secretary of the Treasury from making Title V payments to
Alaska Native regional and village corporations, or ANCs. ANCs are not federally recognized
tribes; rather, they are for-profit corporations established by Congress in 1971 under the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act and recognized under Alaska law.
The CARES Act defines “Tribal governments” to mean “the recognized governing body
of an Indian Tribe.” The Act in turn defines “Indian Tribe” by cross-referencing the definition of
that term in another statute: the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.
In Plaintiffs’ view, ANCs do not meet the statutory definition of either “Indian Tribe” or “Tribal
government.” The Secretary of the Treasury, whom Congress vested with authority to allocate
Title V funds, on the other hand, reads the CARES Act to allow payment of Title V funds to ANCs.
The court previously agreed with Plaintiffs, at least tentatively, and preliminarily enjoined the
Secretary from distributing CARES Act funds to ANCs. See Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis
Reservation v. Mnuchin, Case No. 20-cv-1002 (APM), 2020 WL 1984297 (D.D.C. April 27, 2020)
(“Confederated Tribes”). In that decision, the court found that Plaintiffs would be irreparably
harmed absent emergency relief, and that they had established a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits.
The matter is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Although the court
initially determined that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim, after
reviewing the parties’ arguments on summary judgment, the court now holds that ANCs are
“Indian Tribes,” and that their boards of directors are “Tribal governments,” for purposes of the
2
42
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document117
97 Filed 06/26/20
07/15/20 Page 3
43ofof36
76
CARES Act. Accordingly, ANCs are eligible to receive Title V funds. As a result, the court
dissolves the preliminary injunction and enters judgment in favor of Defendants.
I.
A. Background
The court begins with a brief overview of the relevant statutes and the history of this case. 1
1. Statutory Background
Congress enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES
Act”), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020), to respond to the devastating impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Title V of the CARES Act, the title relevant here, appropriates $150 billion
for fiscal year 2020 for “payments to States, Tribal governments, and units of local government.”
42 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1). Of that sum, $8 billion is “reserve[d] . . . for making payments to Tribal
governments.” Id. § 801(a)(2)(B). Congress directed the Secretary of the Treasury (“Secretary”)
to disburse those monies to “Tribal governments” within 30 day of the law’s enactment, or by
April 26, 2020. § 801(b)(1).
The CARES Act defines “Tribal government” as “the recognized governing body of an
Indian tribe.” Id. § 801(g)(5). The Act further provides that “[t]he term ‘Indian Tribe’ has the
meaning given that term” in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. § 5304(e)). Id. § 801(g)(1). The Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act, or ISDEAA, defines “Indian tribe” as “any Indian tribe, band, nation,
or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village
corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
1
For a more detailed factual and procedural background, the court directs the reader to its Memorandum
Opinion granting preliminary injunctive relief. See Confederated Tribes, 2020 WL 1984297.
3
43
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document117
97 Filed 06/26/20
07/15/20 Page 44ofof36
76
(85 Stat. 688) [43 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (“ANCSA”)], which is recognized as eligible for the
special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as
Indians.” 25 U.S.C. § 5304(e). The court refers to “Alaska Native . . . regional or village
corporation[s]” in this opinion as ANCs.
Congress enacted ISDEAA in 1975 “to help Indian tribes assume responsibility for aid
programs that benefit their members.” Menominee Indian Tribes of Wis. v. United States,
136 S. Ct. 750, 753 (2016). Under ISDEAA, federally recognized Indian tribes, tribal
organizations, and tribal consortiums can choose to have the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
provide direct services, or they can operate the programs themselves by entering into “self-
determination contracts” with these federal agencies to provide services that otherwise would have
been provided by the federal government, such as education, law enforcement, and health care.
25 U.S.C. § 5321(a)(1); see also Menominee Indian Tribes of Wis., 136 S. Ct. at 753. A
contracting tribal organization is eligible to receive the amount of money that the federal
government would have otherwise spent on the program, see 25 U.S.C. § 5325(a)(1), as well as
reimbursement for reasonable “contract support costs,” which include administrative and overhead
costs associated with carrying out the contracted programs, id. § 5325(a)(2), (3)(A). ISDEAA was
amended in 1988, 1994, and 2000, and now includes health care programs administered by the
Indian Health Service. See Pub. L. 100-472 (Oct. 5, 1988); Pub. L. 103-413 (Oct. 25, 1994); Pub.
L. 106-260 (Aug. 18, 2000).
2. Factual and Procedural Background
Congress instructed the Secretary to distribute Title V funding quickly—within 30 days of
the law’s enactment. So, on April 13, 2020, shortly after the CARES Act became law, the
Secretary published on the Treasury Department’s website a form titled “Certification for
4
44
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document117
97 Filed 06/26/20
07/15/20 Page 5
45ofof36
76
Requested Tribal Data,” which sought certain data to effectuate disbursement of CARES Act
funds. See Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Pls.’ Mot. for TRO & Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 3,
Decl. of Riyaz Kanji, Ex. 2, ECF No. 3-8 [hereinafter Certification], at 15–16. The Certification
identified metrics specific to ANCs. ANCs are not federally recognized Indian tribes but are for-
profit corporations established by Congress under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. See
43 U.S.C. §§ 1606, 1607. The metrics specific to ANCs identified by the Secretary included
“shareholders” as of January 1, 2020, and total land base, which expressly included lands “selected
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.” Certification.
The Certification’s posting prompted three groups of Tribes to bring suit against the
Secretary under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), challenging the Secretary’s
anticipated treatment of ANCs as eligible for Title V funding. Id. On April 17, 2020, the
Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, the Tulalip Tribes, the Houlton Band of Maliseet
Indians, the Akiak Native Community, the Asa’carsarmiut Tribe, and the Aleut Community of
St. Paul Island (collectively, “Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs”) filed an action against the Secretary.
Confederated Tribes Compl., ECF No. 1. 2 Shortly afterward, Plaintiffs Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Rosebud Sioux Tribe filed their suit, see Cheyenne River Sioux
Compl., ECF No. 1, and Plaintiff Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation filed a
third lawsuit the next day, see Ute Compl., ECF No. 1. The court consolidated all three cases.
See Docket 20-cv-1070, Minute Order, April 24, 2020; Docket 20-cv-1059, Minute Order, April
23, 2020.
2
The Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added the Navajo Nation; Quinault
Indian Tribe; Pueblo of Picuris; Elk Valley Rancheria, California; and San Carlos Apache Tribe as plaintiffs.
See Am. Confederated Tribes Compl., ECF No. 7. Plaintiffs again brought the same single count for violations of the
APA. Id. ¶¶ 117–23.
5
45
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document117
97 Filed 06/26/20
07/15/20 Page 6
46ofof36
76
On April 23, 2020, the Treasury Department formally announced its position that it
intended to distribute Title V funds to ANCs: “After consultation with the Department of the
Interior, Treasury has concluded that Alaska Native regional and village corporations as defined
in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act are eligible to receive
payments from the Fund in the amounts to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury.”
U.S. TREASURY DEP’T, Coronavirus Relief Fund Payments to Tribal Governments (April 23,
2020) (footnote omitted). 3
All Plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunctive relief, which this court granted on April 27,
2020. See Confederated Tribes, 2020 WL 1984297. In granting that relief, the court rejected the
Secretary’s threshold contention that the Treasury Department’s legal determination that ANCs
are eligible for Title V funds is a presumptively unreviewable discretionary action under the APA.
See id. at *5–6. The court concluded that, “while the Secretary’s decisions as to how much to
disburse might not be reviewable, his decisions to whom to disburse those funds most certainly
is.” Id. at *5 (footnote omitted). As for the injunction factors, the court evaluated them on a sliding
scale and found that they weighed in favor of granting relief. See id. at *7–15. In particular, on
the merits of the APA claim, the court preliminarily agreed with Plaintiffs that no ANC satisfied
the CARES Act’s definition of “Tribal government” and therefore no ANC was eligible for Title
V funds. Id. at *10. The court declined, however, to grant the full relief that Plaintiffs sought.
Instead of compelling the Secretary to distribute all $8 billion in Title V funds only to federally
recognized Indian tribes, the court entered a “more limited remedy,” id. at *16, which enjoined the
3
Available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Coronavirus-Relief-Fund-Payments-to-Tribal-
Governments.pdf. The Confederated Tribes and the Cheyenne River Sioux Plaintiffs both amended their complaints
a second time following summary judgment briefing to include an additional allegation regarding the Secretary’s April
23, 2020 statement, which was not issued until after the date of the Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs’ first amended
complaint. See Confederated Tribes Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 93; Cheyenne River Sioux Second Am. Compl.,
ECF No. 96.
6
46
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document117
97 Filed 06/26/20
07/15/20 Page 7
47ofof36
76
Secretary from disbursing Title V funds to any ANC pending entry of a final judgment in the case,
see Order, ECF No. 37.
On May 5, 2020, the Treasury Department began distributing 60 percent, or $4.8 billion,
of the $8 billion in Title V funds designated for Tribal governments. The Secretary allocated that
sum based not on any information collected through the Certification, but rather on pre-existing
tribal population data maintained by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(“HUD”). See U.S. DEP’T OF TREASURY, Coronavirus Relief Fund Allocations to Tribal
Governments (May 5, 2020), at 2. 4 Based on the HUD data, the Secretary determined that ANCs
would receive $162.3 million in Title V funds but withheld that amount to comply with the
preliminary injunction. See Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Mnuchin, No. 20-cv-01136
(APM) [hereinafter Agua Caliente Band], 5/8/2020 Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 30, at 18.
The Secretary began disbursing the balance of the Title V funds on June 17, 2020.
See Notice, Agua Caliente Band, ECF No. 43 [hereinafter Notice]. This second tranche of
emergency relief was distributed based on employment and expenditure data submitted by Tribal
governments, including ANCs. See Def.’s Status Report, Agua Caliente Band, ECF No. 39. The
Secretary once again allocated Title V funds to ANCs but withheld making payments per the
court’s order, see Notice, and he has not publicly announced the exact amount withheld for ANCs
in this second tranche of funding.
Meanwhile, a number of ANCs and ANC associations filed motions to intervene as
defendants in this case, 5 which the court granted. See Minute Order, May 13, 2020; Order, ECF
4
Available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Coronavirus-Relief-Fund-Tribal-Allocation-
Methodology.pdf.
5
See Mot. of Ahtna, Inc. to Intervene as Defendant & Incorporated Mem. of Law, ECF No. 43; Mot. of
Alaska Native Village Corp. Ass’n, Inc. & Ass’n of ANCSA Regional Corp. Presidents/CEO’s, Inc. to Intervene and
Mem. of P. & A., ECF No. 45; Mot. to Intervene as Defendants & Supp. Mem. of Law, ECF No. 46.
7
47
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document117
97 Filed 06/26/20
07/15/20 Page 8
48ofof36
76
No. 70. Summary judgment briefing concluded on June 9, 2020, and the court heard argument on
the parties’ cross-motions on June 12, 2020. See Minute Entry, June 12, 2020.
II.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate when the
moving party demonstrates that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). However, in cases such as this
one involving review of a final agency action, the standard set forth in Rule 56 does not apply.
See AFL-CIO v. Chao, 496 F. Supp. 2d 76, 81 (D.D.C. 2007). The court’s role in an APA action
“is to determine whether or not as a matter of law the evidence in the administrative record
permitted the agency to make the decision it did.” Charter Operators of Ala. v. Blank, 844 F. Supp.
2d 122, 127 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting Occidental Eng’g Co. v. INS, 753 F.2d 766, 769–70 (9th Cir.
1985)). Summary judgment “serves as a mechanism for deciding, as a matter of law, whether the
agency action is supported by the administrative record and is otherwise consistent with the APA
standard of review.” Id.
III.
The Secretary renews the jurisdictional argument that the court rejected at the preliminary
injunction stage, which is that “Congress did not intend for emergency relief payments to be
subject to judicial review.” Def.’s Mot for Summ. J., ECF No. 79, Def.’s Mem of Law in Supp.
of its Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 79-1 [hereinafter Def.’s Mot.], at 11. The Secretary points to
two features of the CARES Act that he contends evince such congressional intent. First, he points
to the short statutory, 30-day timeline to distribute funds. Id. at 11–12. Second, he argues that the
statutory scheme, which does not require Treasury to publish to “whom it will be paying, its
methodology or the payment amounts” prior to disbursing the funds, makes clear Congress’s intent
8
48
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document117
97 Filed 06/26/20
07/15/20 Page 9
49ofof36
76
that the Secretary’s decisions be insulated from review. Id. at 12. These arguments are refinements
of the Secretary’s prior assertion of judicial non-reviewability, but they fare no better.
There is a “strong presumption that Congress intends judicial review of administrative
action.” Council for Urological Interests v. Sebelius, 668 F.3d 704, 708 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting
Bowen v. Mich. Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670 (1986)). That presumption can be
overcome if “congressional intent to preclude judicial review is fairly discernible from the
statutory scheme.” Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340, 390 (1984). But such a showing
entails a “heavy burden,” which must be carried by “clear and convincing evidence.” Dunlop v.
Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 567 (1975) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Furniture
& Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen & Packers v. Crowley, 467
U.S. 526 (1984).
A tight statutory deadline by itself is not sufficient to overcome the strong presumption in
favor of judicial review. See id. at 562 n.2 & 567 (holding that a decision by the Secretary of
Labor subject to a 60-day deadline is reviewable); In re FTC Corp. Patterns Report Litig., 432
F. Supp. 274, 289–90 (D.D.C. 1977) (rejecting argument that 45-day timeline for agency action
evinced Congress’[s] intent to preclude judicial review, and reasoning that “[a]t best, a court could
indirectly imply from Congress’s obvious desire to prevent undue delays an intent to protect the
[Secretary’s] actions from judicial scrutiny. This tenuous link, however, does not constitute clear
and convincing evidence of Congressional intent to preclude judicial review.”). The cases
Defendant cites to the contrary are easily distinguishable. In Morris v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491
(1977), for example, the Court pointed to numerous features of the statute, including “the potential
severity of the . . . remedy, the statutory language, and the legislative history,” from which
“nonreviewability [could] fairly be inferred.” Id. at 501, 504 (citation omitted). No such additional
9
49
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page10
50of
of36
76
indicia are present here. Dalton v. Specter also is inapposite. There, four concurring Justices
found that a series of “tight and rigid deadlines” prescribed in a statutory scheme for military base
closings was an indication that Congress did not intend for judicial review of an individual closing
determination. 511 U.S. 462, 479 (1994) (Souter, J., concurring, joined by Blackmun, Stevens,
Ginsburg, JJ.). But there was also more at play in Dalton: the Justices observed that “the Act’s
text and intricate structure . . . plainly express congressional intent that action on a base-closing
package be quick and final, or no action be taken at all.” Id. That included not only a series of
“unbending” time deadlines, but also the speed with which the base closures were to occur if
approved and the disbanding of the base-closing Commission at the end of each decision round,
and its eventual automatic termination. See id. at 480–81. Here, in sharp contrast, Congress did
not tie the 30-day distribution period to any other deadline for congressional or agency action; and
there is no impending automatic expiration of authority to distribute the funds. 6 Nor can it be said
that the deadline is “unbending,” as the Secretary—independent of any litigation—did not begin
distributing the second tranche of funds until June 12, 2020, 47 days past the 30-day deadline, see
Def.’s Status Report, Agua Caliente Band, ECF No. 39; 42 U.S.C. § 801(b)(1). A stand-alone
deadline, even one of a mere 30 days, cannot without more overcome the strong presumption in
favor of agency review.
Nor does the fact that Congress did not require the Secretary to identify aid recipients
before making payments indicate an intent to foreclose judicial review. The Secretary points to
no evidence that Congress even considered such a pre-publication requirement, let alone
consciously elected not to adopt one. The court cannot draw any inference of non-reviewability
6
At most, Title V mandates payment of funds for “fiscal year 2020,” which expires September 30, 2020.
42 U.S.C. § 801(b). That leaves sufficient time to litigate this matter to its conclusion, including possible expedited
appellate review.
10
50
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page11
51of
of36
76
from Congress’s failure to enact a provision that it did not even consider. The presumption of
reviewability therefore applies, and the Secretary has failed to defeat it.
IV.
The court turns now to the merits. Recall, the CARES Act grants $8 billion in emergency
aid to “Tribal governments,” which the Act defines as “the recognized governing body of an Indian
Tribe.” 42 U.S.C. § 801(g)(5). “Indian Tribe,” in turn, “has the meaning given that term” under
ISDEAA. Id. § 801(g)(1). ISDEAA defines “Indian tribe” as:
[A]ny Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or
community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or
village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688), which is
recognized as eligible for the special programs and services
provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as
Indians.
25 U.S.C. § 5304(e). Plaintiffs argue that ANCs do not qualify for Title V funds for two reasons:
(1) ANCs do not meet ISDEAA’s definition of “Indian Tribe,” and (2) ANCs are not a “recognized
governing body” of an Indian tribe, nor do they have such a body. Though these arguments seem
straightforward at first blush, the parties have staked out varied approaches in addressing them.
Whether ANCs are “Indian Tribes” under ISDEAA turns on how one reads the dependent
clause that appears at the end of the ISDEAA definition—“which is recognized as eligible for the
special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as
Indians.” The court refers to this as the “eligibility clause.” According to the Confederated Tribes
Plaintiffs, the eligibility clause applies to each listed entity that comes before it, including most
critically “Alaska Native . . . regional or village corporations”—ANCs. See Confederated Tribes
Mot. for Summ. J. and Mem. of P. & A., ECF No. 77 [hereinafter Confederated Tribes Mot.], at
11
51
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page12
52of
of36
76
13 (citing 25 U.S.C. § 5304(e)). Because no ANC presently satisfies the eligibility clause, those
Plaintiffs say, none qualifies for CARES Act funds. Id. at 13–14.
The Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs, however, are the only Plaintiffs that press this
interpretation. The Cheyenne River Sioux and Ute Plaintiffs (collectively, “Cheyenne River Sioux
Plaintiffs”) acknowledge that “ANCs can be treated as ‘Indian tribe[s]’ for limited purposes” under
ISDEAA. See Pls. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe’s, Rosebud Sioux Tribe’s, Oglala Sioux Tribe’s,
Nondalton Tribal Council’s Arctic Village Council’s Native Village of Venetie Tribal
Government’s, Navajo Nation’s, & Ute Indian of the Uintah & Ouray Indian Reservation’s Mem.
in Supp. of Jt. Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 76-2 [hereinafter Cheyenne River Sioux Mot.], at 4.
Thus, there is a split among Plaintiffs as to whether ANCs qualify as “Indian Tribes” for purposes
of the CARES Act.
Ironically, the Secretary agrees with the Confederated Tribe Plaintiffs that ANCs do not
satisfy, and never have satisfied, the eligibility clause; and yet he contends that ANCs qualify for
CARES Act funding as “Indian Tribes” under ISDEAA. Def.’s Mot. at 1. The Secretary asserts
that the ISDEAA definition must be read to, in effect, exempt ANCs from satisfying the eligibility
clause. That interpretation, the Secretary claims, is faithful to congressional design, because the
Confederated Tribes’ alternative reading, if accepted, would render the listing of ANCs in the
ISDEAA definition surplusage and defeat Congress’s intent to make ANCs eligible for ISDEAA
self-determination contracts. The ANC-Intervenors, by contrast, take a “heads-I-win, tails-I-win”
approach to reading the ISDEAA definition. They say that ANCs do satisfy the ordinary meaning
of the eligibility clause, because they are “eligible for the special programs and services provided
by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.” Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of
Intervenor-Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 78-1 [hereinafter Intervenors’ Mot.], at 47;
12
52
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page13
53of
of36
76
Intervenor-Defs.’ Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Cross-Mots. for Summ. J., ECF No. 86 [hereinafter
Intervenors’ Opp’n], at 5. The Secretary expressly rejects this reading, contending that the
eligibility clause conveys the principle of federal recognition of Indian tribes, which ANCs as
corporations cannot satisfy (the Confederated Tribe Plaintiffs agree). See Def.’s Combined Opp’n
& Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 88 [hereinafter Def.’s Opp’n], at 4 n.3;
Confederated Tribes Mot. at 14; Confederated Tribes Pls.’ Reply in Supp. of its Mot. for Summ.
J. & Resp. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mots. for Summ. J., ECF No. 87 [hereinafter Confederated Tribes
Opp’n], at 7–8. No matter, say the ANC-Intervenors. If their primary reading is incorrect, they
then embrace the Secretary’s reading, which exempts ANCs from the eligibility clause.
See 6/12/2020 Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 94, at 88–89. Either way, according to the ANC-Intervenors,
they qualify as “Indian Tribes” under ISDEAA and therefore are eligible for Title V funds. Id.
There is greater alignment among the parties on the second question: whether an ANC
qualifies as a “Tribal government” for the purposes of the CARES Act. The Cheyenne River Sioux
Plaintiffs urge the court not to get bogged down in the morass of whether ANCs qualify as “Indian
Tribes” because, in their view, “ANCs are not Tribal governments under any measure.” Cheyenne
River Sioux Mot. at 2. The Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs agree, though this is their secondary
position. Confederated Tribes Mot. at 12–13. The Secretary and the ANC-Intervenors see eye-
to-eye on this question, too. They agree that an ANC’s board of directors qualifies as a “recognized
governing body of an Indian tribe” for purposes of the CARES Act. Def.’s Mot. at 34; Intervenors’
Mot. at 38–39. Their argument, as will be seen below, relies on a similar definitional phrase
contained in ISDEAA, “tribal organization,” that appears nearly verbatim as the CARES Act’s
definition of “Tribal government,” compare 25 U.S.C. § 5304(l) (defining “tribal organization” to
mean in part “the recognized governing body of any Indian tribe”) with 42 U.S.C. § 801(g)(5)
13
53
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page14
54of
of36
76
(defining “Tribal government” to mean “the recognized governing body of an Indian Tribe”),
which they assert encompasses an ANC’s board of directors for ISDEAA contracting purposes.
Def.’s Mot. at 30–31, 33; Intervenors’ Mot. at 38–39.
As the above summation shows, this case does not present easy, straightforward questions
of statutory interpretation. The court has wrestled with them. Each side has marshaled an
impressive array of textual, historical, and practical evidence, all of which must be viewed against
the unique treatment of Native Alaskans by Congress and Executive Branch agencies. Though the
court ruled at the preliminary injunction stage that ANCs likely did not qualify for CARES Act
funds, as explained below, the court now concludes otherwise: ANCs qualify as “Indian Tribes,”
and their boards of directors are “recognized governing bod[ies],” for purposes of the CARES Act.
Accordingly, the court holds that ANCs are eligible for Title V funding.
A. “Indian Tribe” under ISDEAA
The parties agree that, as a matter of pure grammar, the eligibility clause contained in the
definition of “Indian Tribe” in ISDEAA and the CARES Act applies to ANCs. See Hr’g Tr. at
54–55; Intervenors’ Opp’n at 4–5; Confederated Tribes Mot. at 13–14. The eligibility clause
plainly modifies each of the nouns that precedes it, including ANCs. The parties diverge, however,
on whether that grammatical structure both begins and ends the statutory interpretation debate.
Each side comes armed with its own preferred canon of statutory construction. The
Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs contend that the series-qualifier canon of statutory interpretation
settles this case. See Confederated Tribes Mot. at 13–14. Under that canon, “‘[w]hen there is a
straightforward, parallel construction that involves all nouns or verbs in a series,’ a modifier at the
end of the list ‘normally applies to the entire series,’” Lockhart v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 958,
970 (2016) (Kagan, J., dissenting) (quoting ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING
14
54
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page15
55of
of36
76
LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 147 (2012) (SCALIA & GARNER)). Relatedly, under
the last antecedent rule, “a limiting clause or phrase . . . should ordinarily be read as modifying
only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows.” Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26 (2003).
Applying either of these canons dictates that “any Alaska Native village or regional or village
corporation” qualifies as an “Indian tribe” only if it is “recognized as eligible for the special
programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians,”
25 U.S.C. § 5304(e); see also Confederated Tribes Mot. at 13 n.8. Because no ANC is so
recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States, the
argument goes, no ANC is an “Indian tribe” under ISDEAA.
The Secretary, on the other hand, urges the court to look beyond the statute’s grammatical
structure. He argues that a blind application of the series-qualifier canon would violate the
“‘cardinal principle’ of statutory interpretation”—that is, “to adopt a reading that gives effect to
every term in the statute.” Def.’s Opp’n at 7 (quoting Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs., Ltd. v.
Newton, 139 S. Ct. 1881, 1890 (2019)). Here, according to the Secretary, Congress expressly
inserted ANCs into the statutory text, despite knowing that ANCs could not satisfy the eligibility
clause because of their status as for-profit corporations. Subjecting ANCs to the eligibility clause
therefore would negate their addition, rendering the inclusion of “Alaska Native [ ] regional or
village corporation” surplusage.
Although a close question, the court is now convinced that, in 2020 when Congress passed
the CARES Act, it could not have intended the eligibility clause to apply ANCs. Several
considerations lead the court to this result. First, while the Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs
emphasize the importance of the series-qualifier canon, the court’s proper role is not to apply a
single canon of statutory construction—“canons of construction are no more than rules of thumb
15
55
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page16
56of
of36
76
that help courts determine the meaning of legislation,” Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S.
249, 253 (1992). The court must interpret the statute as whole to give effect to congressional
intent. Parker Drilling, 139 S. Ct. at 1890. Consequently, the court cannot simply disregard the
inclusion of ANCs in the definition that Congress chose for purposes of the CARES Act. Second,
the court’s interpretation is consistent with ISDEAA’s legislative history, which reveals that
Congress took pains to include ANCs in the ISDEAA definition. Third, to the extent the competing
canons of construction give rise to ambiguity, Skidmore deference to the BIA’s interpretation of
ISDEAA is warranted, given the reasonableness of the agency’s approach and its longstanding
adherence to it. The court discusses each of these reasons below. Because the court reads the
eligibility clause as inapplicable to ANCs, the court does not address the ANC’s alternative
argument that they satisfy the ordinary meaning of the eligibility clause.
1.
Applying the series-qualifier canon in this case does not resolve the statutory interpretation
debate. “[A]s with any canon of statutory interpretation,” the series-qualifier canon “‘is not an
absolute and can assuredly be overcome by other indicia of meaning.’” Lockhart, 136 S. Ct. at
963, 965 (quoting Barnhart, 540 U.S. at 26). Indeed, as the Tenth Circuit has observed, the series-
qualifier canon, “perhaps more than most canons, is subject to defeasance by other canons—that
is, it is perhaps more prone than most to have its effect nullified by other canons.” Jordan v.
Maxim Healthcare Servs., Inc., 950 F.3d 724, 745 (10th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up); see also SCALIA
& GARNER at 150 (“Perhaps more than most of the other canons, [the series-qualifier canon] is
highly sensitive to context.”).
Such is the case here, where the series-qualifier canon runs headlong into another canon of
interpretation: the rule against superfluity. It is “the ‘cardinal principle’ of interpretation that
16
56
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page17
57of
of36
76
courts ‘must give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.’” Parker Drilling, 139
S. Ct. at 1890 (quoting Loughrin v. United States, 573 U. S. 351, 358 (2014)). As a result, courts
are “reluctant to treat statutory terms as surplusage in any setting.” Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S.
167, 174 (2001) (cleaned up). Such reluctance is particularly apt here, where adopting Plaintiffs’
construction would render Congress’s purposeful inclusion of ANCs in the ISDEAA definition
“wholly superfluous.” Id. at 174. ANCs would become “wholly superfluous” under the
Confederated Tribes’ preferred reading, because all agree (except the ANCs themselves) that
ANCs never have, and almost certainly never will, satisfy the eligibility clause. ANCs cannot be
recognized “as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to
Indians because of their status as Indians.” 25 U.S.C. § 5304(e) (emphasis added). ANCs, after
all, are for-profit corporations established by Congress and recognized under Alaska law, and thus
do not enjoy “status as Indians.” Indeed, under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the
statute that established ANCs by extinguishing all aboriginal claims to Alaska land, the transfer of
land to the new, state-chartered private business corporations “was without any restraints on
alienation or significant use restrictions” precisely because Congress intended to avoid “‘any
permanent racially defined institutions, rights, privileges, or obligations.’” Alaska v. Native Vill.
of Venetie Tribal Gov’t, 522 U.S. 520, 532–33 (1998) (quoting 43 U.S.C. § 1601(b)). Thus, while
the first ANC shareholders were required to be Alaska Natives, the corporations could immediately
convey former reservation lands and ANC stock to non-Natives. Id. at 533; 43 U.S.C. § 1606(h).
It cannot be said, then, that ANCs enjoy “status as Indians.”
Moreover, both the Secretary and the Confederated Tribes read the eligibility clause as
conveying the principle of federal recognition, which confers upon tribes a distinct political and
legal status in relation to the United States. See 6/12/2020 Hr’g Tr. at 60; Confederated Tribes
17
57
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page18
58of
of36
76
Mot. at 14–15. The Confederated Tribes contend that ISDEAA’s eligibility clause must be read
in pari materia with the nearly identical language in the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List
Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-454, 108 Stat. 4791, or List Act, which directs the Secretary of
Interior to publish a “list of all Indian tribes that the Secretary recognizes to be eligible for the
special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as
Indians” (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 5131(a))). No ANC has ever been federally recognized by the United
States as an Indian tribe under the List Act because no ANC is “recognize[d] to be eligible for the
special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of [its] status as
Indians.” The court agrees that the nearly identically worded eligibility clauses in both statutes
are terms of art that convey the principle of federal recognition, and thus reading the eligibility
clause to apply to ANCs would render as surplusage their listing in the ISDEAA definition of
“Indian tribe.”
The Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs attempt to sidestep this superfluity problem by asserting
there is no such problem to begin with. They contend that the disjunctive nature of the clause in
which ANCs appear—which they refer to as the “Alaska clause”—“means that the clause has
effect as long as ‘any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation’ satisfies the terms
of the eligibility clause, and according to the Secretary of the Interior’s own listing there are 229
Native villages[7] that do.” Confederated Tribes Opp’n at 8. The court expressed a similar logic
in its preliminary injunction opinion, writing that “[t]he possibility that ANCs might not qualify
under the eligibility clause is hardly fatal to carrying out Congress’s purpose under ISDEAA . . .
[because] [Alaska Native villages] are also in the statute [and] [t]hey can and do satisfy the
7
Alaska Native villages are not corporations. They are sovereign, political entities exercising governmental
authority, much like “‘Indian tribes,’ as that term is commonly used to refer to Indian entities in the contiguous
48 states.” See Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian
Affairs, 58 Fed. Reg. 54,364, 54,365 1993 WL 420646 (October 21, 1993).
18
58
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page19
59of
of36
76
eligibility clause.” Confederated Tribes, 2020 WL 1984297 at *11. The court is no longer
convinced of this rationale. ISDEAA says that “‘Indian tribe’ means any . . . organized group or
community, including any Alaska Native [1] village or [2] regional [corporation] or [3] village
corporation as defined in or established pursuant to [ANCSA].” 25 U.S.C. § 5304(e) (emphasis
added). Congress thus intended for any of the nouns in the Alaska clause to satisfy the definition,
and subjecting any of those nouns to a requirement that it cannot meet—as Plaintiffs seek to do—
would still turn that noun into surplusage. The series-qualifier canon therefore must give way in
this case to the rule against superfluity. 8
Plaintiffs’ cited authorities are not to the contrary. Plaintiffs rely on Chickasaw Nation v.
United States, 534 U.S. 84 (2001), and King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015), for the proposition
that “the canon against surplusage should [not] be elevated to Holy Grail status and operate to
subvert the plain meaning of the statutory text.” Confederated Tribes Opp’n at 10. But these cases
are readily distinguishable. Chickasaw Nation concerned a provision of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act that, like ISDEAA, featured an “including” clause (akin to the Alaska clause)
followed by a limiting clause (akin to the eligibility clause). 534 U.S. at 86–87. The Court there
rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on the canon against surplusage and instead found that the limiting
clause applied to the words before it—to find otherwise would “seriously rewrit[e] the language
of the rest of the statute.” Id. at 89. But critical to that conclusion was the Court’s reasoning that
the troublesome language in the statute—a cross-reference to another chapter of the Internal
Revenue Code—was “simply a drafting mistake, a failure to delete an inappropriate cross-
reference in the bill that Congress later enacted into law.” Id. at 91.
8
The Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs also suggest that applying the eligibility clause to ANCs does not render
them superfluous under ISDEAA, because in 1975, when Congress passed the statute, it was an open question whether
ANCs could satisfy the eligibility clause. Confederated Tribes Mot. at 31. The court addresses this argument in the
following section.
19
59
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page20
60of
of36
76
The Court struck a similar chord in King v. Burwell. That case involved the Affordable
Care Act, which the Court observed “contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting” and,
by virtue of how the legislation was enacted, “does not reflect the type of care and deliberation
that one might expect of such significant legislation.” 135 S. Ct. at 2492. In light of these
shortcomings, the Court found “specifically with respect to this Act, rigorous application of the
[surplusage] canon does not seem a particularly useful guide to a fair construction of the statute.”
Id.
The reasons for discounting the surplusage canon that were present in Chicksaw Nation
and King v. Burwell simply are not present here. There is nothing to suggest that Congress’s
inclusion of ANCs in the ISDEAA definition of “Indian tribe” was a drafting error; nor is there
any reason to question the Legislative Branch’s diligence in drafting the definition. To the
contrary, as discussed4 further below, the definition’s legislative history reflects a conscious
decision on the part of Congress to make ANCs eligible to contract with the United States to deliver
public services to Alaska Native populations. Thus, while the “preference for avoiding surplusage
constructions is not absolute,” Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 536 (2004), there is
no good reason to abandon it here.
Admittedly, reading the ISDEAA definition as the Secretary posits gives rise to an odd
grammatical result. No one disputes that an “Alaska Native village”—the first entity listed in the
Alaska clause—must satisfy the eligibility clause to qualify as an “Indian tribe” under ISDEAA.
See Confederated Tribes, 2020 WL 1984297 at *11. An Alaska Native village that is not
“recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to
Indians because of their status as Indians” cannot contract with a federal agency under ISDEAA.
That reading, however, creates the strange result that the eligibility clause modifies the first in the
20
60
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page21
61of
of36
76
series of three nouns that comprises the Alaska clause, but not the last two. That is an unnatural
reading, to be sure. The court’s primary goal, however, is to discern the “intent embodied in the
statute Congress wrote.” Chicksaw Nation, 534 U.S. at 94. Treating ANCs as not subject to the
eligibility clause achieves that purpose. Congress expressly included ANCs in the definition of
“Indian tribe” under ISDEAA to make them eligible to enter into self-determination contracts with
federal agencies. By incorporating wholesale ISDEAA’s definition of “Indian Tribes” into the
CARES Act, Congress declared ANCs to be eligible for Title V emergency relief funds.
2.
ISDEAA’s drafting history lends support to this conclusion. Neither the Senate’s nor the
House of Representative’s initial versions of the ISDEAA definition of “Indian tribe” included
ANCs, though each included the eligibility clause. See H.R. 6372, § 450b(b), 93rd Cong., 1st
Sess. (1973); S. 1017, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974), 120 Cong. Rec. 2813-19; see also Cook Inlet
Native Ass’n v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1471, 1474–75 (9th Cir. 1987) (discussing ISDEAA’s legislative
history). The House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom the Senate bill was
referred, “amended the definition of ‘Indian tribe’ to include regional and village corporations
established by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.” H.R. Rep. 93-1600; 120 Cong. Rec.
40252 (Dec. 16, 1974). The amended definition that became law, and remains the same today,
thus reads, “including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or
established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.” See Pub. L. 93-638 § 4(b), 88
Stat. 2203, 2204 (1975) (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 5304(e)). Importantly, not only did the amended
definition expressly include ANCs, the latter portion of the clause—“established pursuant to
[ANCSA]”—applies only to ANCs. As the Secretary points out, while “native villages” are
defined in ANCSA, only Alaska regional and village corporations are “established” by it. See
21
61
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page22
62of
of36
76
Def.’s Opp’n at 5 & n.5 (citing H.R. Rep. 93-1600; 120 Cong. Rec. 40252 (Dec. 16, 1974)). That
Congress went out of its way to add ANCs to the statutory definition of “Indian tribe” is compelling
evidence that Congress intended ANCs to meet that definition. It would be an odd result indeed
for Congress to include ANCs in one breath only to negate their inclusion in the very next breath
through the eligibility clause.
The Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs endeavor to explain this ostensible statutory
contradiction by positing that Congress “left the door open” for ANCs to satisfy the eligibility
clause in ISDEAA, and only “over time” has the Secretary of the Interior declared that ANCs are
not eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because
of their status as Indians. Confederated Tribes Mot. at 31. In support, Plaintiffs point to two
comments submitted in 1977—two years after Congress passed ISDEAA—to proposed BIA
regulations regarding the development of uniform procedures for the recognition of Indian tribes.
Confederated Tribes Opp’n at 20–21. These comments, submitted by two Alaska Native
corporations, suggest some uncertainty as to whether ANCs could satisfy the eligibility clause.
See id. But these isolated comments, from private enterprises, have little to no probative value in
determining whether Congress in fact “left the door open” for ANCs to satisfy the eligibility clause
when it passed ISDEAA. There is simply no legislative history before the court to support the
notion that Congress in 1975 believed ANCs could ever meet the eligibility clause.
Moreover, whether ANC eligibility remained an unsettled question in 1975 is ultimately a
distraction. The issue before the court is whether Congress meant for ANCs to be eligible for
CARES Act relief in 2020. The Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs concede that by 1978, when the
BIA proposed revised regulations regarding the recognition of Indian tribes that expressly
excluded ANCs, “the door was closed on [the] possibility” that ANCs could meet the eligibility
22
62
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page23
63of
of36
76
clause. Confederated Tribes Opp’n at 21–22; 6/12/2020 Hr’g Tr. at 21. And certainly by 2020,
Congress understood that no ANC could satisfy the eligibility clause, as none had done so since
ISDEAA’s inception. 6/12/20202 Hr’g Tr. at 59–60. Thus, by incorporating the ISDEAA
definition into the CARES Act, Congress must have known that it had selected a definition of
“Indian Tribe” that expressly encompasses ANCs, notwithstanding their falling outside the
definition’s eligibility clause. 9 Congress therefore intended to make Title V funds available to
ANCs.
3.
The court also concludes that, to the extent there is ambiguity in the definition of “Indian
tribe,” the Secretary’s position is entitled to Skidmore deference. Under Skidmore v. Swift & Co.,
the weight a court affords to an agency interpretation “will depend upon the thoroughness evident
9
The parties tussle over what inference can be drawn, if any, from Congress’s selection of the ISDEAA
definition of “Indian tribe,” as opposed to some other statutory definition of “Indian tribe” appearing in the U.S. Code.
See Intervenors’ Mot. at 28; Confederated Tribes’ Opp’n 12. The answer is none. As the parties point out, the
U.S. Code contains multiple different definitions of “Indian tribe.” Some of those definitions expressly include ANCs.
See, e.g., 20 U.S.C. § 1401(13) (defining “Indian tribe” as “any Federal or State Indian tribe, band, rancheria, pueblo,
colony, or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional village corporation (as defined in or established
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. . . .)”). Some do not. See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. § 5130(2) (“The term
‘Indian Tribe’ means any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village or community that the Secretary
of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian Tribe.”). Some expressly exclude ANCs. See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. §
3501(4)(B) (“For the purpose of paragraph (12) and sections 3503(b)(1)(C) and 3504 of this title, the term ‘Indian
Tribe’ does not include any Native Corporation.”). Some expressly include them. Of those definitions that expressly
include ANCs, some incorporate a similarly worded eligibility clause. See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. § 4103(13)(B) (defining
“federally recognized tribe” as “any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community of Indians,
including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, that is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by
the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act”). Others do not. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. § 470bb(5) (defining “Indian tribe” as “any Indian tribe, band,
nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation
as defined in, or established pursuant to, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688) [43 U.S.C. §§ 1601-
1629h]”).
All this proves is that Congress, when it passed the CARES Act, had other statutory definitions available to
it that could have provided greater clarity about the eligibility of ANCs. Unfortunately, this availability sheds no
useful light on the dispute at hand. The Alaska Federation of Natives amicus suggest a neat dichotomy among the
various statutory definitions: Congress includes ANCs within the definition of “Indian tribe” when the statute concerns
economic legislation, but not when it concerns tribal self-governance, and the CARES Act falls into the former
category. Amicus Br. of the Alaska Federation of Natives, ECF No. 81, at 13–14. The court need not pass on the
merits of these proposed groupings, as the ordinary tools of statutory construction suffice to reach an answer.
23
63
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page24
64of
of36
76
in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later
pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to
control.” 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944). Ultimately, a court upholds an agency determination under
Skidmore to the extent is has “power to persuade.” Christensen v. Harris Cty., 529 U.S. 576, 587
(2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Davis v. United States, 495 U.S.
472, 484 (1990) (“[W]e give an agency’s interpretations . . . considerable weight where they
involve the contemporaneous construction of a statute and where they have been in long use.”).
The position that the Secretary advances in this case is neither new nor cut from whole
cloth. The Department of Interior, which administers the federal government’s affairs with Indian
tribes, has long taken the position that ANCs qualify as “Indian Tribes” for purposes of ISDEAA
and therefore are permitted to contract with federal agencies. In 1976, the year after ISDEAA was
enacted, the Assistant Solicitor for Indian Affairs, Charles M. Soller, issued a memorandum to the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs that evaluated whether ANCs meet the ISDEAA definition of
“Indian tribe.” J.A., ECF No. 90-1, at 610–13 [hereinafter Soller Mem.] at 611. The
Commissioner had asked Soller to address “whether [Alaska Native] village and regional
corporations are within the scope of” ISDEAA. Id. at 610. The question arose due to the
“qualifying language” in the statute’s definition of “Indian tribe,” i.e., the eligibility clause. Id. at
611. Soller concluded that, “[s]ince both regional and village corporations find express mention
in the definition, customary rules of statutory construction would indicate that they should be
regarded as Indian tribes for purposes of application of this Act.” Id. at 610. Soller acknowledged
that the eligibility clause added “qualifying language,” and he observed that “profit-making
regional and village corporations have not heretofore been recognized as eligible for [Bureau of
24
64
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page25
65of
of36
76
Indian Affairs] programs and services which are not provided for by the terms of the Settlement
Act.” Id. at 611. But, Soller concluded,
if the quoted language operates to disqualify [ANCs] from the
benefits of [ISDEAA], then their very mention in section 4(b) is
superfluous. Therefore, we think the better view is that Congress
intended the qualifying language not to apply to regional and village
corporations but to pertain only to that part of the paragraph which
comes before the word “including.” Accordingly, regional and
village corporations are within the scope of the Act.
Id. 10
Thus, the argument against surplusage that the Secretary advances in this litigation has a
long historical antecedent. It has been the position of the agency in charge of Indian affairs for
nearly 45 years. Although the analysis is brief, Soller recognized the interpretive challenge
presented by Congress’s drafting of the ISDEAA definition, identified the competing canons of
statutory construction, and evaluated those canons in light of contemporaneous understandings of
the statutory terms used and Congress’s intent. The Soller Memorandum therefore has the “power
to persuade.” Christensen, 529 U.S. at 587 (citation omitted).
The Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs seek to undermine the force of the Soller Memorandum
by faulting its failure to consider the disjunctive nature of the Alaska clause. See Confederated
Tribes Opp’n at 18. But, as explained, the use of the disjunctive does nothing to save the clause
from superfluity. Soller’s ultimate reading of the statute is reasonable. This was the conclusion
of the only appellate court to have considered whether ANCs qualify as “Indian Tribes” for
purposes of ISDEAA. See Bowen, 810 F.2d at 1471. Although a single appellate decision cannot
amount to a judicial consensus that the court can presume Congress knew of and endorsed when
10
Soller appears to have misspoken in one respect. To apply the eligibility clause only to those words that
appear “before the word ‘including’” would mean that the eligibility clause does not apply to “Alaska Native
village[s].” But no one then, or now, takes the position that an Alaska Native village can contract under ISDEAA
unless it satisfies the eligibility clause. See Confederated Tribes, 2020 WL 1984297 at *11.
25
65
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page26
66of
of36
76
it incorporated the ISDEAA definition into the CARES Act, see Confederated Tribes, 2020 WL
1984297, at *12, Bowen lends additional persuasive force to the agency’s longstanding view that
ANCs are “Indian tribes” under ISDEAA. Thus, to the extent that the ISDEAA definition of
“Indian tribe” contains any ambiguity, Skidmore counsels affording deference to the agency’s
interpretation.
The Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs go to great lengths to cast the Department of Interior’s
position on ANCs under ISDEAA as inconsistent and lacking clarity. See Confederated Tribes
Opp’n at 19–25. The court need not take on this complex history. For present purposes, it suffices
to say that the Confederated Tribes have identified no point in time in last four decades in which
the Department of Interior has not treated ANCs as “Indian Tribes” for purposes of ISDEAA. 11
11
The most interesting evidence of different agency treatment of ANCs is that, for a short period of time,
from 1988 to 1994, the Department of Interior actually identified ANCs alongside federally recognized tribes on its
list of “Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from [BIA].” Confederated Tribes Mot. at 39
(citing 53 Fed. Reg. 52,829–02, 52,832–33 (Dec. 29, 1988)). The BIA removed ANCs from the 1994 version of the
list but in so doing reaffirmed ANCs’ status as “Indian tribes” for purposes of ISDEAA. The BIA observed that “a
number of non-tribal Native entities in Alaska that currently contract with or receive services from the Bureau of
Indian Affairs pursuant to specific statutory authority, including ANCSA village and regional corporations and various
tribal organizations,” were no longer on the list, but that their non-inclusion on the list “does not affect the continued
eligibility of the entities for contracts and services.” Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from
the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 58 FR 54,364, 54,366, 1993 WL 420646 (October 21, 1993) (emphasis
added). ANC’s on-and-off-again status on the BIA’s list, then, only indicates that the BIA struggled with how to
properly characterize Alaska entities, but has always acknowledged their continued eligibility for certain contracts,
including under ISDEAA.
This understanding comports with the 1977 Report submitted to Congress by the American Indian Policy
Review Commission. The 1977 Report made clear that while Alaska Native village and regional corporations are not
“repositories of tribal sovereignty,” they should not “be excluded from the benefits of existing and future legislation
and programs designed to promote the development of Native peoples.” Def.’s Mot., Ex. 1, ECF No. 79-2, at 495.
While the Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs discount the 1977 Report as simply one report submitted to Congress, with
“no indication that Congress ever agreed with these cursory and erroneous conclusions or has taken any action in
reliance on them,” Confederated Tribes Opp’n at 20, the court notes that the Report’s author, the American Indian
Policy Review Commission, was established through Congressional resolution and was composed of three senators,
three members of the House of Representatives, and five Indian leaders. American Indian Policy Review Commission,
Final Report (May 17, 1977) (Appendix A (“How the Commission Did Its Work”) at 3, available at
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/011340209. Further, the investigations that contributed to the Report were
conducted by eleven task forces “each composed of three members selected from among the leading authorities in
their respective fields of expertise in Indian affairs.” Id. The Commission’s Report, “a product of Indian participation,
represent[s] ‘a compendium of information on a scale heretofore unavailable to the Federal Government’” and
“represent[s] the most comprehensive review of Indian policies and programs ever conducted.” Id. at 4. See also
Cheyenne River Sioux Mot. at 16 n.14 (explaining that the Department of the Interior “still relies [on] this [1977]
26
66
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page27
67of
of36
76
As noted at the outset of this discussion, the Cheyenne River Sioux Plaintiffs do not dispute
that ANCs qualify as “Indian tribes” under ISDEAA. But they do seek to diminish their role and
status, explaining that ANCs have “limited tribal status” under certain narrow circumstances.
See Cheyenne River Sioux Mot. at 14–17. Relying on agency contracting priority policies, they
contend that “ANCs may qualify under ISDEAA’s definition of ‘Indian tribe’ only as a stop-gap
to ensure critical services are provided to Alaska Natives in regions where there are no actual
federally recognized Tribal governments, or where Tribal governments choose to compact with
ANCs to provide services under ISDEAA.” Id. at 14. The court has no reason to doubt the
accuracy of that characterization. But ANCs’ status as a contracting partner of “last resort” only
underscores that ANCs are nevertheless eligible for ISDEAA contracts. For definitional purposes,
ANCs are not considered “Indian tribes” only as a last resort under ISDEAA; they are always
“Indian tribes.” The same thus holds true under the CARES Act.
4.
Before moving on, the court must address some of the reasons it set forth in its preliminary
injunction opinion when ruling that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. Of course, the
“findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a court granting a preliminary injunction are not
binding at trial on the merits,” see Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981), and the
additional briefing in this case has convinced the court to change its mind.
First, the court described the Secretary’s reading of ISDEAA as “counter-textual.”
Confederated Tribes, 2020 WL 1984297, at *11. The court no longer ascribes to that view for the
reasons already discussed. Second, the court deemed inconsistent and unexplained the
Report”). Thus, the court has no reason to doubt the accuracy of the 1977 Report generally and considers the Report
as providing some evidence that, close to the time of IDEAA’s enactment, Congress understood ISDEAA to treat
ANCs as “eligible” Indian tribes.
27
67
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page28
68of
of36
76
government’s position taken in other cases, but not here, that “the definition of ‘Indian tribe’ in
various federal statutes must be read in conjunction with the List Act. In other words, unless the
entity or group appears on the Interior Secretary’s List, it does not qualify as an ‘Indian tribe.’”
Id. at *12–13 (citing Wyandot Nation of Kan. v. United States, 858 F.3d 1392, 1396, 1397–98
(Fed. Cir. 2017); Slockish v. U.S. Fed. Highway Admin., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1178, 1202 (D. Or.
2010)). As the Secretary now points out, Wyandot and Slockish were cases that did not involve
ANCs but entities claiming tribal status even though not federally recognized. Def.’s Mot. at 19–
20. It was therefore appropriate in those cases for the government to insist on identification on the
Interior Department’s List, whereas the same insistence is not necessary here, because ANCs are
already treated as “Indian tribes” for purposes of ISDEAA. Finally, the court reasoned that
“Congress’s adoption of the ISDEAA definition cannot be divorced from actual agency practice
under ISDEAA, which seemingly is to contract with ANCs only, if at all, with tribal consent or as
a last resort.” Id. at *13. The flaw in that logic is now apparent. Even if actual agency practice is
to rarely contract with ANCs to deliver services under ISDEAA, the fact remains that ANCs are
“Indian tribes” for purposes of ISDEAA contracting eligibility. By importing ISDEAA’s
definition into the CARES Act, Congress carried forward that same treatment. 12
* * *
Accordingly, the court holds that Alaska Native village and regional corporations meet
ISDEAA’s definition of “Indian tribe,” and therefore ANCs qualify as “Indian tribes” for the
purposes of CARES Act funding.
12
The decision whether to award ANCs Title V funds in proportion to their status as a service provider of
“last resort” is an allocation determination that rests squarely within the broad discretion that Congress vested in the
Secretary. See generally Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Mnuchin, No. 20-cv-1491 (APM), 2020 WL 3402298,
at *1–2 (D.D.C. June 11, 2020) (holding that the Secretary’s selected allocation method under Title V of the CARES
Act is an unreviewable discretionary agency action under the APA).
28
68
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page29
69of
of36
76
B. “Recognized Governing Bodies” under ISDEAA
Having concluded that ANCs qualify as “Indian tribes” under ISDEAA, the court now
turns to the second question: Are ANCs “recognized governing bod[ies],” or do they have such
bodies? Remember, Title V provides that the Secretary shall make payments only to “the
recognized governing bod[ies]” of Indian Tribes. See 42 U.S.C. § 801(g)(5). The parties dispute
whether “recognized” is a legal term of art meaning “federally recognized”—in which case, only
federally recognized tribes, and not ANCs, meet the definition—or whether it carries an ordinary
meaning. Confederated Tribes Mot. at 19; Cheyenne River Sioux Opp’n at 7–8; Def.’s Opp’n at
31–32; Intervenors’ Opp’n. at 16–17. They also dispute whether “governing body” refers to
“government status or attributes of sovereignty,” see Cheyenne River Sioux Mot. at 4, or whether
it “simply references the entity or individuals authorized to govern the organization in its charter
or other organizing documents,” Intervenors’ Opp’n at 15.
In evaluating the parties’ arguments, ISDEAA once more serves as the starting point.
ISDEAA authorizes the federal government to contract not with an Indian tribe, but with a tribal
organization, to deliver public services. 25 U.S.C. § 5321. ISDEAA defines “tribal organization”
in two ways: (1) “the recognized governing body of any Indian tribe”; and
(2) any legally established organization of Indians which is
controlled, sanctioned, or chartered by such governing body or
which is democratically elected by the adult members of the Indian
community to be served by such organization and which includes
the maximum participation of Indians in all phases of its activities:
Provided, That in any case where a contract is let or grant made to
an organization to perform services benefiting more than one Indian
tribe, the approval of each such Indian tribe shall be a prerequisite
to the letting or making of such contract or grant.
25 U.S.C. § 5304(l). The first definition of “tribal organization” should ring familiar as Congress
used almost the same exact words to define “Tribal government” for purposes of the CARES Act.
29
69
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page30
70of
of36
76
Compare id. with 42 U.S.C. § 801(g)(5) (“The term ‘Tribal government’ means the recognized
governing body of an Indian Tribe.”). The ISDEAA definition of “tribal organization” is therefore
instructive in understanding the term “Tribal government” under the CARES Act. See Branch v.
Smith, 538 U.S. 254, 281 (2003) (explaining that “courts do not interpret statutes in isolation, but
in the context of the corpus juris of which they are a part”).
All parties, even the Confederated Tribe Plaintiffs, concede that ANCs may enter into
ISDEAA contracts. See Confederated Tribes Mot. at 36 (describing ANC contracting under
ISDEAA as occurring in “exceptional” or “narrow” circumstances). Thus, to enjoy such status,
ANCs, or some constituent part of them, necessarily must meet at least one of ISDEAA’s two
definitions of “Tribal organization,” because only a “tribal organization” may enter into an
ISDEAA contract, see 25 U.S.C. § 5321(a)(1). The Plaintiffs part ways on which of the two
definitions apply. The Cheyenne River Sioux Plaintiffs say that ANCs satisfy the first definition
of “tribal organization”—“the recognized governing body of any Indian tribe”; yet they resist the
logical next step that ANCs also are, or have, a “recognized governing body” for purposes of the
CARES Act, even though the two statutes use the exact same terms. The Confederated Tribes
Plaintiffs attempt to dodge this trap. They argue that ANCs fall into the second, longer definition
of “tribal organization,” which Congress did not incorporate into the CARES Act. See id. at 35.
In their view, ANCs qualify as “tribal organization[s]” only because they are a “legally established
organizations of Indians . . . sanctioned by” the governing body of an Indian tribe, in this case, “a
Native village.” 6/12/2020 Hr’g Tr. at 14. This reading, in their view, harmonizes how ANCs are
not, or do not have, a “recognized governing body,” but still can enter into ISDEAA contracts as
a “tribal organization.” Id. The court takes Plaintiffs’ arguments in reverse order.
30
70
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page31
71of
of36
76
The Confederated Tribes’ reading cannot be squared with ISDEAA’s text. ANCs are not
“controlled, sanctioned, or chartered” by the governing body of an Indian Tribe. 13 ANCs are
corporate entities established by Congress and chartered under Alaska state law. See generally 43
U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. Though the ISDEAA definition of “tribal organization” uses the word
“sanctioned,” it does not use that term in the sense of tribal approval of ISDEAA contracts. The
term “sanction” in the definition of “tribal organization” is entirely disconnected from contract
approval. It is true, as the Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs point out, that ANCs ordinarily obtain
the approval of governing bodies of Native Villages as a condition of ISDEAA contracts. But that
requirement stems not from the word “sanctioned,” but rather from the “Provided” clause found
later in the definition: “in any case where a contract is let or grant made to an organization to
perform services benefiting more than one Indian tribe, the approval of each such Indian tribe
shall be a prerequisite to the letting or making of such contract or grant.” 25 U.S.C. § 5304(l)
(emphasis added). Thus, if an ANC seeks to enter into a contract that benefits a Native Village, it
must logically obtain the approval of that Native Village’s governing body as a condition of doing
so. 14
This interpretation of ISDEAA is consistent with the longstanding view of the Department
of Interior. As the Soller Memorandum explains, ANCs as “Indian tribes” under ISDEAA can
seek self-determination contracts on their own behalf, and their boards of directors qualify as the
13
Nor do they satisfy the second half of the second “tribal organization” definition: ANCs are not
“democratically elected by the adult members of the Indian community to be served by such organization.” 25 U.S.C.
§ 5304(l).
14
Plaintiffs make the point that, absent specific approval from a Tribal government, an ANC can receive an
ISDEAA contract “[o]nly if a Tribal government does not exist for a specific area.” Cheyenne River Sioux Mot. at
17; 6/12/2020 Hr’g Tr. at 40; see also Confederated Tribes Mot. at 36. This fact only underscores that ANCs must fit
under the first category of “tribal organization,” because in these circumstances—limited though they may be—there
is no Tribe to “sanction” the ISDEAA contract. That such ISDEAA contracts arise only as a “last resort” or in
“exceptional circumstances” is of no moment. Nothing in the text of the statute limits ANCs’ functioning as, or
having, “recognized governing bodies” only to these “last resort” circumstances.
31
71
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page32
72of
of36
76
“governing body” for such purposes. See Soller Mem. at 611 (stating that “regional and village
corporations may request to contract for the provision of BIA services under section 102 of the
Act”). The Memorandum further recognizes that, as a practical matter, ANCs almost always must
obtain tribal consent because such self-determination contracts are likely in some way to be for
the benefit of one or more Native Villages, rather than the corporation itself. Id. at 612 (“[T]he
language of the Act is unambiguous. If a contract or grant benefits more than one village or village
corporation, the approval of each must be obtained.”); id. (“Indeed, it is not clear to us what it
means for a contract to ‘benefit’ a village corporation, as opposed to the Native village. . . .
However, it does seem clear that if a contract is let to a regional tribal organization for the purpose
of providing services in a given village, some governing body in that village must approve that
contract.”). 15 Thus, under a straightforward reading of “tribal organization,” ANCs must be
eligible for contracting under the first definition of “tribal organization”—“the recognized
governing body of any Indian tribe.” 25 U.S.C. § 5304(l). 16 And by the terms of that definition,
they must have a “recognized governing body” for purposes of ISDEAA. If ANCs have a
“recognized governing body” for purposes of ISDEAA, it stands to reason that Congress brought
that same meaning forward in the CARES Act, as the first definition of “tribal organization” in
15
The sole case that the Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs cite, Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corp. (“UIC”) v. U.S. Dep’t
of Health and Human Svcs, No. 3:13-cv-00073-TMB, 2013 WL 12119576 (D. Alaska May 20, 2013), at *2–3), does
not help them. There, an ANC obtained a contract to provide services at a hospital. Of the approvals it obtained, two
were from other ANCs and one was from the contracting ANC itself. 2013 WL 12119576 at *1 & n.5 (listing, in
addition to UIC (the contracting ANC), Atqasuk Village Corporation and Kuukpik Village Corporation). This case
thus supports the understanding that ANCs are “Indian Tribes.” Otherwise, the ANCs’ “approvals” would not have
been required under the proviso in ISDEAA’s definition of “tribal organization.” See 25 U.S.C. § 5304(l) (“[I]n any
case where a contract is let or grant made to an organization to perform services benefitting more than one Indian
tribe, the approval of each such Indian tribe shall be a prerequisite.”) (emphasis added).
16
ANCs plainly fall under the first definition for another reason. If, as the Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs
contend, they fall under the second definition of “Tribal organization,” there would have been no need to expressly
include them in the definition of “Indian Tribe,” see 25 U.S.C. § 5304(e), because ANCs could simply contract under
the second definition, see id. § 5304(l). Accepting the Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs’ position would thus render
ANCs’ inclusion in the “Indian Tribe” definition surplusage twice over.
32
72
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page33
73of
of36
76
ISDEAA and the definition of “Tribal government” in the CARES Act are essentially identical.
See Branch, 538 U.S. at 281.
Plaintiffs resist this logic. They contend that Congress’s use of the word “recognized” was
intended as a term of art, meant to convey the unique political and legal status afforded to federally
recognized tribes. See Confederated Tribes Mot. at 21–23; Cheyenne River Sioux Opp’n at 6–8.
The Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs, for example, point to a federal regulation that defines
“[r]ecognized governing body” as “the tribe’s governing body recognized by the Bureau [of Indian
Affairs] for the purposes of government-to-government relations.” Confederated Tribes Mot. at
21 (quoting 25 C.F.R. § 81.4). But that regulation by its own terms “applies only to federally
recognized tribes,” id. § 81.2, because the regulation concerns election procedures to “adopt,
amend, or revoke tribal governing documents” and charters, id. § 81.1. It is unsurprising, then,
that ANCs would not be included in such a regulation. Likewise, the Cheyenne River Sioux
Plaintiffs point to a slew of cases holding that ANCs are not “governing bodies” or “tribal
governments.” See Cheyenne River Sioux Mot. at 11–12 (collecting cases); Cheyenne River Sioux
Opp’n at 6–8; see also Confederated Tribes Mot. at 22–23 (same). Not only are these cases from
non-ISDEAA contexts, they concern a proposition that is simply not at issue here; no one disputes
that ANCs are not Tribal governments in the traditional sense. This case concerns the entirely
separate question whether ANCs have “recognized governing bodies” for purposes of the CARES
Act. See Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 566 U.S. 449, 455 (2012) (“Congress remains free, as
always, to give [a] word a broader or different meaning” than the one suggested by the word’s
plain meaning.).
On this question, while the court agreed with Plaintiffs’ argument at the preliminary
injunction stage, see Confederated Tribes, 2020 WL 1984297, at *10, upon further reflection the
33
73
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page34
74of
of36
76
court now concludes the opposite—“recognized” standing alone, as it is used in the CARES Act’s
definition of “Tribal government,” does not convey federal recognition of an Indian tribe. The
best evidence of this reading is that Congress used nearly the exact same words, “recognized
governing body of any Indian tribe,” found in the first definition of “tribal organization” in
ISDEAA, 25 U.S.C. § 5304(l). While the Cheyenne River Sioux Plaintiffs point out that the
CARES Act incorporated only ISDEAA’s definition of “Indian Tribe” and did not import ISDEAA
“whole cloth,” 6/12/2020 Hr’g Tr. at 120, ISDEAA nevertheless demonstrates that when Congress
uses the word “recognized,” or even “recognized governing body,” it does not a fortiori mean
“federally recognized.” “Recognition” is not used as a term of art in the IDEAA definition of
“tribal organization”; 17 it follows that the same is true under the CARES Act.
Another interpretive clue leads to this conclusion. The Cheyenne River Sioux’s reading,
if accepted, would produce the result that Congress expressly granted eligibility in one definition
under the CARES Act—by incorporating the ISDEAA definition of “Indian tribe”—but silently
took it away in another—by excluding ANCs from the definition of “Tribal government.” It would
be passing strange to exclude ANCs so obliquely, and the court cannot presume that Congress
intended such a result.
Finally, and contrary to what the court previously concluded, see Confederated Tribes,
2020 WL 1984297, at *10, Plaintiffs’ appeal to statutory context is ultimately not convincing.
Specifically, they contend that the statute’s “definition of ‘Tribal government’ must be read in
th[e] context” of Title V of the CARES Act, which they argue is “directed to sovereign
17
Relevant agencies have long understood this. Under the 1981 guidelines promulgated by Interior and
HHS, for example, ANCs can be “recognize[d] as the village governing body” for “the purposes of contracting under
Pub. L. 93-628 [ISDEAA].” 46 Fed. Reg. 27,178-02, 27,179 (May 18, 1981). And the 1988 list of Tribes published
by Interior described ANCs as “Alaska entities which are recognized and eligible to receive funding and services from
the Bureau of Indian Affairs.” 53 Fed. Reg. at 52,832 (emphasis added).
34
74
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page35
75of
of36
76
governments and their political subdivisions.” Confederated Tribes Mot. at 24; see also Cheyenne
River Sioux Mot. at 2 (emphasizing that the CARES Act uses the term “Tribal governments”
“15 times in just over three pages”). But there is nothing inconsistent with treating ANCs
alongside tribal governments for these limited purposes. ISDEAA is aimed at providing
government services—including health care—to Indians by partnering with Tribal organizations,
including, at times, ANCs. It stands to reason that Congress, in its effort to distribute emergency
funds quickly to Indians under the CARES Act, intended to get those dollars in the hands of the
same entities that deliver public services to Indians. In the lower 48 states, those entities are largely
Tribal governments in the traditional sense, but in Alaska, those entities include Alaska Native
village and regional corporations. See Intervenors’ Mot. at 14–18. ANCs’ inclusion in Title V
alongside other types of traditional governments is therefore not incongruous with Congress’s
purpose of appropriating emergency funds for “governments” to deliver public services to address
and manage a national health emergency. In the end, the question before the court is whether
ANCs are “Tribal governments” for the limited purpose of delivering public services to combat
the COVID-19 pandemic. For all the foregoing reasons, they are.
* * *
Before concluding, the court addresses Plaintiffs’ concern that deeming ANCs eligible for
Title V funding will enact a sea-change in Tribal law. See, e.g., 6/12/2020 Hr’g Tr. at 42–43.
Not so. The court does no more than opine on the status of ANCs under ISDEAA and the CARES
Act, and it reaches a holding that is consistent with longstanding treatment of ANCs under
ISDEAA by the federal government. The court’s ruling in no way elevates ANCs to “super-tribal
status” as the Confederated Tribes Plaintiffs maintain, Confederated Tribes Opp’n at 10; nor does
it allow ANCs to “compete” with federally recognized tribes in any other context as the Cheyenne
35
75
Case
Case1:20-cv-01002-APM
1:20-cv-01002-APM Document
Document 97
117 Filed
Filed06/26/20
07/15/20 Page
Page36
76of
of36
76
River Sioux Plaintiffs fear, Cheyenne River Sioux Mot. at 12. The court’s decision simply
recognizes that ANCs are eligible for CARES Act funds, as Congress intended—no more, no less.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the Secretary’s and Defendant-Intervenors’
Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 78 and 79, and denies Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary
Judgment, ECF Nos. 76 and 77. A final, appealable Order accompanies this Memorandum
Opinion.
Dated: June 26, 2020 Amit P. Mehta
United States District Court Judge
36
76
File and source
- File
- 117-transmission-of-notice-of-appeal-and-docket-sheet-to-usca.pdf
- Size
- 1,252,703 bytes
- SHA-256
- 3dc5610686027979dde08875c65226762f98c2f5f3d2f609b36fe4f2a5c46ecf
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com