848 F. Supp. 2d 30
D.D.C.2012Background
- QEL sues the BIA seeking review of a Board decision under the APA.
- Old Section 81 required DOI approval for contracts related to Native American lands; New Section 81 narrowed the field of contracts requiring such approval.
- Board initially held Old Section 81 applied; remanded for explanation; Board later issued a more developed 2010 decision reaffirming Old Section 81 due to improper retroactive effect of New Section 81.
- Court previously found the Board's reasoning insufficient on retroactivity and land-relationship grounds and remanded; 2010 Board opinion addressed these issues.
- Court follows summary judgment standard and reviews for APA arbitrariness, capriciousness, and lawfulness; ultimately grants defendant's motion and denies plaintiff's.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old vs. New Section 81 governs | QEL contends the Board's retroactivity analysis is flawed and that New Section 81 should apply. | BIA argues Old Section 81 controls for the agreement given retroactive concerns. | Court accepts Board's retroactivity reasoning; New Section 81 would have impermissible retroactive effect; Old Section 81 applies for the analysis. |
| Did Old Section 81 require DOI approval for the agreement? | QEL argues the contract related to Pueblo lands and thus would not require approval under Old Section 81. | BIA argues the contract was related to Native American lands and thus required DOI approval under Old Section 81. | Court holds DOI approval was required under Old Section 81. |
| Retroactivity effect of applying New Section 81 | QEL argues New Section 81 would create retroactive rights and duties. | BIA contends New Section 81 would not apply retroactively in the same way and would not create retroactive obligations. | Court finds applying New Section 81 would have impermissible retroactive effect; thus not applicable to the agreement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (impermissible retroactivity and timing of statute application)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious review standard and need for reasoned decisions)
- Bowen v. American Hosp. Ass'n, 476 U.S. 610 (1986) (need for rational connection between facts and choice; data considered)
- Tourus Records, Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 259 F.3d 731 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (agency justification and data consideration; narrow review)
- Rosales v. United States, 477 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D.D.C. 2007) (reasoned decision upheld under APA review)
- Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Hodel, 663 F. Supp. 1300 (D.D.C. 1987) (Old Section 81 related to Native lands and DOI approval)
- A.K. Mgmt. Co. v. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, 789 F.2d 785 (9th Cir. 1986) (interpretation of 'relative to' Native American lands)
- Wis. Winnebago Bus. Comm. v. Koberstein, 762 F.2d 613 (7th Cir. 1985) (contract relation to tribal lands and validity considerations)
- Associated Fisheries of Me., Inc. v. Daley, 127 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 1997) (reasoned agency decisions upheld on APA review)
- Pub. Citizens v. Dept. of Justice, 988 F.2d 197 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (precedent for Chevron-like deference not controlling when terms unambiguous)