Mdewakanton Sioux Indians of Minnesota v. Jewell
264 F. Supp. 3d 116
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs: three individuals and the Mdewakanton Sioux Indians of Minnesota (MSIM), a group claiming status as an acknowledged Indian tribe based on an 1863 Act and later events; MSIM is not on the Secretary’s list of federally recognized tribes.
- Core claim: under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Plaintiffs allege the Department of the Interior refused to consult with MSIM in 2016 about proposed amendments to the Prairie Island Indian Community (PIICSM) constitution and changes to the land assignment system.
- Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief that the Department must consult with MSIM as an acknowledged tribe and complain generally about alleged loss of land rights tied to historic statutes.
- Defendants moved to dismiss (converted to summary judgment) arguing Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that the claims are time-barred among other defenses.
- The court limited its review to the discrete APA claim alleging denial of consultation in 2016, concluding other asserted claims were undeveloped or waived.
- Holding: the motion to dismiss was converted to a motion for summary judgment and granted because Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies (Part 83 tribal recognition process and the Department’s internal appeal processes); the statute of limitations defense was not applied to bar the narrowed 2016 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs may sue under APA for alleged refusal to consult without exhausting administrative remedies | MSIM need not complete administrative processes because they have been acknowledged historically and agency delay, incapacity, and bias excuse exhaustion | Plaintiffs must exhaust available administrative remedies (25 C.F.R. §2.8 appeals and Part 83 recognition) before seeking judicial relief | Court: Plaintiffs must exhaust; summary judgment for Defendants for failure to exhaust |
| Whether the Part 83 tribal-recognition process is a required prerequisite | MSIM contends prior acknowledgment suffices and Part 83 is unnecessary for consultation rights | Defendants: Part 83 is the formal avenue for recognition; courts require completion before adjudicating tribal status issues | Court: Requires completion of Part 83 before court decides whether agency erred in denying consultation |
| Whether exhaustion should be excused for futility, irreparable harm, or agency incompetence/bias | Plaintiffs argue delay, agency incapacity, and bias make exhaustion futile or unjustifiable | Defendants: no adequate showing to excuse exhaustion; agency has expertise and processes; prior litigation does not prove futility | Court: Declines to excuse exhaustion; Plaintiffs’ assertions are unsupported and insufficient |
| Whether the claim is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) | Plaintiffs: 2016 denial is within six years; statute started to run in 2016 when consultation was requested | Defendants: older historical events put Plaintiffs on notice earlier and claim is barred | Court: The 2016 denial claim accrued in 2016 and is within six years; court does not dismiss on statute-of-limitations ground for that narrow claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Ass’n of Flight Attendants-CWA v. Chao, 493 F.3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (framework for prudential exhaustion and when courts may excuse it)
- James v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 824 F.2d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Part 83 recognition petition required as prerequisite to acknowledgment)
- Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell, 829 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (courts should defer to Part 83 process before deciding tribal-recognition questions)
- Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Salazar, 708 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Part 83 applies to petitions by previously recognized tribes seeking current recognition)
- Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1938) (principle that administrative remedies must ordinarily be exhausted before judicial relief)
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (U.S. 2015) (Supreme Court decision discussed in relation to whether statutes of limitation are jurisdictional)