Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Kenneth Salazar
404 U.S. App. D.C. 131
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Muwekma Ohlone Tribe seeks federally recognized Indian tribe status; petition filed in 1995, denied in 2002, district court later upheld Interior's denial on summary judgment.
- Verona Band (predecessor) was federally recognized 1914–1927; Muwekma claims descent; no post-1927 federal recognition or continued benefits.
- Part 83 recognition process established in 1978; seven criteria (a–g) for new tribes; relaxation for previously recognized tribes under § 83.8(d).
- Interior treated Verona Band/Muwekma as previously recognized but found lack of ongoing government-to-government interactions post-1927; Ione and Lower Lake granted summary recognition outside Part 83 due to post-1927 interactions.
- Muwekma challenged on equal protection, APA, due process, and termination-of-recognition theories; district court and this court upheld Interior's determinations and rejected relief.
- On appeal, court held: Muwekma’s equal protection/APA claims fail (not similarly situated); termination claim not entitled to relief on merits; due process and § 554(d) arguments unavailing; Interior’s remand explanation proper and not improper post hoc rationalization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection vs. similarly situated tribes | Muwekma asserts disparate treatment vs. Ione/Lower Lake outside Part 83. | Interior treated Ione/Lower Lake differently based on post-1927 government interactions; Muwekma not similarly situated. | Equal protection/APA claims fail; not similarly situated. |
| Termination of recognition claim | Only Congress may terminate federal recognition; termination-equivalent claim should proceed. | Claim either exhausted or merits fail; not a termination under law. | Claim not barred by exhaustion; merits fail; recognition did not terminate. |
| Due process and 554(d) concerns | Prev. recognized tribe status entitles due process hearings; staff conflicts taint decision. | No cognizable property interest; 554(d) not triggered; no due process violation. | No due process or 554(d) violation. |
| Remand rationales and post hoc explanations | Interior's remand explanation cannot justify why not like Ione/Lower Lake. | Remand explanations are proper, not impermissible post hoc rationalizations. | Remand explanation adequately explains distinctions; not improper. |
| Arbitrary and capricious review | Tests and evidentiary standards misapplied; evidence gathering inadequate. | Agency acted within regulatory framework; applied reasonable likelihood standard; deference due. | Final determination not arbitrary or capricious. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miami Nation of Indians of Ind., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 255 F.3d 342 (7th Cir. 2001) (tribal existence can fade; recognition depends on current status)
- James v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Services, 824 F.2d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (exhaustion principle for agency determinations in recognition context)
- Food Marketing Inst. v. ICC, 587 F.2d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (post-hoc rationalizations on remand must reflect genuine reconsideration)
- Kempthorne v. IONE/Lower Lake reasoning cited, 452 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2006) (explains government-to-government interactions as relevant distinction)
- Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe of Indians v. Weicker, 39 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1994) (historical context of recognition mechanisms)