Agua Caliente Tribe of Cupeno v. Tara Katuk Mac Lean Sweeney
932 F.3d 1207
| 9th Cir. | 2019Background
- The Agua Caliente Tribe of Cupeño Indians (Cupeño) claim they are a federally recognized tribe and asked the Assistant Secretary—via letters in 2014–2015—to be listed as such in the Federal Register; Interior denied the request and directed them to use the Part 83 administrative acknowledgment process.
- Historically the Cupeño lived at Warner’s Hot Springs; they and the Pala Luiseño were placed on adjacent reservation tracts at Pala; over time the federal record sometimes treated them as distinct and sometimes as a single entity (the Pala Band of Mission Indians, PBMI).
- The PBMI was listed on Interior’s Federal Register list of recognized tribes beginning in 1979; in 2014 the Cupeño adopted a separate constitution and withdrew from PBMI; PBMI later sought and obtained a name change on the list.
- The Cupeño sued to compel Interior to add them to the Federal Register list (mandamus/APA relief and equal protection/APA claims), arguing Interior should "correct" the list or that its refusal was arbitrary and capricious in light of three past instances where Interior added tribes outside Part 83.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Interior, holding the Cupeño had failed to exhaust the Part 83 administrative process and that Interior had a rational basis for distinguishing the Cupeño from the three tribes previously recognized outside Part 83; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Interior must "correct" the Federal Register list to add Cupeño outside Part 83 | Cupeño: a letter requesting correction suffices; they claim longstanding recognition so Part 83 does not apply | Interior: Part 83 is the prescribed, exclusive administrative process for acknowledgment; Cupeño must petition under Part 83 | Held: Part 83 applies and Cupeño failed to exhaust it; court denied mandamus/compel relief |
| Whether Interior's refusal to add Cupeño without a Part 83 petition was arbitrary and capricious (APA) | Cupeño: Interior treated similar groups differently (three exceptions) without rational basis | Interior: those three groups had demonstrably continuous, long-standing government-to-government dealings; Cupeño recently dissociated from an acknowledged tribe (PBMI) | Held: Interior had a rational basis to require Part 83 for Cupeño; not arbitrary/capricious |
| Whether Cupeño’s equal protection-style claim (disparate treatment) succeeds | Cupeño: inconsistent treatment of similarly situated tribes violates equal protection/rational-basis review | Interior: distinctions (continuous relation vs. recent split from PBMI) are rational and legitimate | Held: Rational-basis review satisfied; Cupeño not similarly situated to the three exceptions |
| Whether any exception to administrative exhaustion (futility, etc.) applies | Cupeño: argued they were already recognized historically and thus should be exempt from Part 83 | Interior: no evidence exhaustion would be futile; Part 83 offers final agency action subject to judicial review | Held: No futility shown; exhaustion required and remedy available after Part 83 final determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481 (describing historical dispossession and related title disputes)
- Kahawaiolaa v. Norton, 386 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing federal recognition, political nature of acknowledgement, and applicable standards)
- Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Salazar, 708 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (affirming application of Part 83 and rejecting equal protection/APA challenge where Interior explained distinctions)
- James v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 824 F.2d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (requiring exhaustion of Interior’s acknowledgment procedures rather than initial judicial recognition)
- United Tribe of Shawnee Indians v. United States, 253 F.3d 543 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding administrative exhaustion required; specialized agency expertise appropriate)
- Aguayo v. Jewell, 827 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2016) (describing tribal enrollment/disenrollment and Interior’s limited review role)
- Wyandot Nation of Kansas v. United States, 858 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (interpreting the List Act as governing federal recognition procedures)
- Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) (context on Congress’s intent re: Indian self-government and federal policy)