Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Salazar
813 F. Supp. 2d 170
D.D.C.2011Background
- Muwekma Ohlone Tribe sued the DOI seeking review of the Final Determination Against Federal Acknowledgment of the Muwekma under the APA and Constitution.
- DOI denied federal acknowledgment under Part 83 regulations after considering whether external identifications and historical evidence supported continued recognition.
- Verona band (pre-1927) was previously acknowledged; the petition sought to treat Muwekma as a continuation or evolved entity.
- The Department ultimately found insufficient evidence that Muwekma remained the same tribal entity after 1927, applying Part 83 and modified criteria.
- Lower Lake and Ione tribes had long-standing governmental relationships with the United States and were recognized outside Part 83, while Muwekma was not similarly situated.
- The case was fully briefed on cross-motions for summary judgment and remanded once the Department supplemented the administrative record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department unlawfully terminated the Muwekma's tribal status | Muwekma asserts Congress governs termination; DOI lacked authority to withdraw recognition | Termination claim barred by statute of limitations and lacks continuous existence | barred by statute of limitations (6 years) |
| Whether the Final Determination was arbitrary and capricious | Final Determination misread/omitted substantial external identifications and evidence | Department reasonably evaluated evidence and applied criteria under Part 83 | not arbitrary or capricious; upheld |
| Whether the Department breached fiduciary duties arising from recognition | Recognition in 1927 created trust duties; Department failed to preserve the trust | If tribe ceased to exist, no ongoing trust; Part 83 governs recognition anew | no fiduciary breach; no ongoing trust duties after dissolution or nonexistence |
| Whether due process rights were violated by withdrawal of recognition | Right to continued recognition is a property interest; due process lacking | No protected property interest in recognition; procedures adequate | due process claim fails; no protected property interest shown |
| Whether equal protection was violated by Part 83 requirement for Muwekma but waivers for Lower Lake/Ione | Treatment of similarly situated tribes was inconsistent | Muwekma not similarly situated; Ione/Lower Lake had long-standing federal dealings | Department’s rationale adequate; not Equal Protection violation |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. Health & Human Servs., 824 F.2d 1132 (D.C.Cir.1987) (agency authority to regulate Indian affairs; deference to expertise)
- Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 255 F.3d 342 (7th Cir.2001) (tribal status and trust relationships; disappearance of tribes)
- Mancari v. Tillman, 417 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1974) (Indian preferences under the Indian Reorganization Act; not unlawful discrimination)
- Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1989) (agency decision must be rationally connected to the facts found and Congress’s aims)
- Bowen v. American Hosp. Ass'n, 476 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1986) (requirement that agencies provide a rational explanation for regulatory choices)
- Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. FAA, 988 F.2d 186 (D.C.Cir.1993) (arbitrary agency action requires explanation; reasoned decision-making)