Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18031

Smith owned a 3/38 undivided restricted interest in the Maria Christiana Reserve No. 35 and sought to gift 1/3 of his interest (1/38) to the Miami Tribe.
The BIA denied the gift, citing lack of long-range best interests and concerns about further fractionation of the Reserve.
Miami Tribe challenged the BIA decision; the district court reversed in part, finding the BIA’s decision arbitrary and capricious, and remanded for approval on remand.
The remand order constrained the BIA to consider long-range fractionation impacts and, ultimately, the BIA approved the gift but denied trust status for the land.
After remand, Miami Tribe challenged the remand decision in district court; the government appealed the district court’s final judgment.
The Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further consideration consistent with its opinion, addressing jurisdiction and merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government may appeal the district court's final judgment.	Government retained standing under law-of-the-case and Camreta because it preserves a stake.	Appealability limited; final judgment should not be reviewable for this remand matter.	The government has appellate jurisdiction to challenge the 2005 Order.
Whether the 2005 Order on remand bound the BIA’s discretion on remand.	Order constrained BIA to approve Smith's gift under the law-of-the-case principles.	BIA retains discretion; remand order did not mandate approval.	The 2005 Order constrained the BIA; on remand the BIA acted within that framework.
Whether Miami Tribe lacks jurisdiction over the Reserve for ILCA § 2216(a) purposes.	Tribe has jurisdiction over the Reserve, invoking § 2216(a) to encourage consolidation.	Congress abrogated the Tribe’s jurisdiction over the Kansas Reserve long ago; § 2216(a) does not apply.	The Tribe lacks jurisdiction over the Reserve; § 2216(a) policy does not apply.
Whether the BIA properly denied the gift under §§ 152.23 and 152.25(d) and the fractionation policy.	Gift should be approved due to special relationship and long-range interests; fractionation policy supports consolidation.	Discretion permitted; gift not in long-range best interests and would worsen fractionation.	BIA’s denial was a valid exercise of discretion; gift not in long-range best interests and would exacerbate fractionation.

Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020 (2011) (prevailing Government officials may appeal under Article III in certain circumstances)
NLRB v. Enter. Ass'n of Pipefitters Local 638, 429 U.S. 507 (1977) (agency errors of law judged with deference; remand to agency)
Poppa v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 1167 (2009) (law-of-the-case and mandate considerations on remand; agency bound by reviewing court)
Cotton Petroleum v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 870 F.2d 1515 (10th Cir. 1989) (remand decisions and final judgments; considerations for appellate review)
Baca-Prieto v. Guigni, 95 F.3d 1006 (10th Cir. 1996) (practical finality and urgent review in remand contexts)
Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (standing to appeal where government prevailed in lower court but remanded decisions existed)
Miami Tribe of Okla. v. United States, 249 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2001) (threshold issue of tribe jurisdiction over land; IGRA and lands analysis)
Downs v. Acting Muskogee Area Dir., 29 IBIA 94 (1996) (BIA denial of gift; long-range best interests and tract management concerns)
Graham v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 501 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2007) (practical finality rule and urgent review balancing)
Miami IV, 249 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2001) (threshold jurisdiction and government power over land; ILCA framework)