Mackinac Tribe v. Sally Jewell, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13140

Background

The Mackinac group (historical band of Ottawa and Chippewa) seeks a secretarial election under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) to adopt a constitution and organize under 25 U.S.C. § 476(a).
The Mackinac are not on the Department of the Interior’s list of federally recognized tribes and have not completed the Part 83 federal acknowledgment process.
The Tribe argues it is effectively federally recognized for IRA purposes as the successor to a tribe recognized by treaty in the 19th century.
The Secretary refused to conduct a Part 81 election; the Tribe sued for declaratory and mandamus relief compelling the election.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary, holding the Tribe failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not pursuing Part 83; the court declined to decide whether Part 83 acknowledgment is a prerequisite to a Part 81 election.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed, applying prudential exhaustion principles from prior circuit precedent and rejecting mandamus because administrative review via Part 83 remained available.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mackinac is entitled to a secretarial IRA election without Part 83 acknowledgment	Mackinac: historically federally recognized (via treaty) and thus eligible for a Part 81 election	Secretary: Mackinac not acknowledged under Part 83 and failed to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief	Court: reserved whether Part 83 acknowledgment is strictly required but held Mackinac must exhaust Part 83 first (prudential exhaustion); affirmed summary judgment for Secretary
Whether mandamus is available to compel an election	Mackinac: seeks a writ ordering Secretary to hold an IRA election now	Secretary: mandamus inappropriate because administrative process remains and right to relief is not clear and indisputable	Court: declined mandamus — plaintiff lacks clear, indisputable right and administrative review via Part 83 is available
Whether courts should decide recognition status de novo before agency review	Mackinac: asks court to recognize tribe for IRA purposes now	Secretary: recognition determinations are for Interior to address in the first instance via Part 83	Court: will defer to agency expertise and require Part 83 exhaustion for prudential reasons (agency delegation, expertise, judicial efficiency)
Whether undue delay or burden excuses exhaustion here	Mackinac: implied concern over delay/burden of Part 83	Secretary: procedural route still available; no present unreasonable-delay finding	Court: noted Part 83 can be lengthy/costly but refused to excuse exhaustion; left possibility of later relief if unreasonable delay occurs during Part 83 process

Key Cases Cited

California Valley Miwok Tribe v. United States, 515 F.3d 1262 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (definition and importance of federal recognition for IRA benefits)
Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009) (interpreting "under Federal jurisdiction" as of 1934 for IRA purposes)
James v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 824 F.2d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (prudential exhaustion requires Part 83 petition before judicial recognition claims)
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Salazar, 708 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (followed James; Part 83 exhaustion required even for tribes claiming prior recognition)
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (mandamus standard: extraordinary relief for clear and indisputable rights)
W. Shoshone Bus. Council v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1052 (10th Cir. 1993) (mandamus and IRA/acknowledgment context)
TRAC v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (factors for assessing unreasonable agency delay)
Muwekma Tribe v. Babbitt, 133 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000) (district court granted mandamus for undue Part 83 delay)
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (contextualized Part 83 delays and reasonableness given limited agency resources)