United Tribes ) Michigan - Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians

GU. DFREY2P KAHNsc
was entitled to a preliminary injunction
based on the NEPA claim because the
BLM's mine-related Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) did not
"adequately consider the environmental
impact of the extraction of millions of
tons of refractory ore, mitigation of the
adverse impact on local springs and
streams, and the extent of fine particulate
emissions. The BLM published a new EIS
in 2011, which the Tribe again challenged,
contending that it failed to consider the
effectiveness of mitigation measures
regarding the environmental consequences
of mine dewatering. The court disagreed
and granted summary judgment in favor
of the BLM, holding that (1) the new
concerns raised by the Tribe were outside
the scope of the Ninth Circuit mandate
and had not been properly raised by the
Tribe previously, and (2) the removal of
groundwater would not cause "unnecessary
or undue degradation of public land" in
violation of the FLPMA because, even
though Barrick proposed no mitigation
measures and the removal of water would
leave "a cone of depression"—i.e., "a
three-dimensional conical area surrounding
the mine pit, from which groundwater has
been removed," the BLM has concluded
that such loss of groundwater does
not constitute "unnecessary or undue
degradation" and its conclusion, according
to the court, was not arbitrary and
capricious under the APA.
In Webb v. Oklahoma Dept. of Human
Services, 2012 WL 10498 (E.D.Okla.),
the plaintiff sued state officials and the
Choctaw Tribe (Tribe), alleging that the
Tribe conspired with state officials to
remove plaintiff's daughter from his home.
The district court dismissed the claims
against the Tribe on sovereign immunity
grounds.
In Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
v. U.S., 2012 WL 192815 (D.D.C.), the
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
Indian Nations Law Focus
(Tribe) had sued the Department of Health
and Human Services, Indian Health Service
(IHS) for contract support costs the Tribe
incurred in providing health care services
to its members in 1995-2000. The court
of appeals had previously held that the
six-year limitation period for presenting
administrative claims, as allowed by the
Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 401,
et seq, could be equitably tolled and had
remanded for an examination of that issue.
The Tribe argued that it was entitled to
equitable tolling because it reasonably
relied on a potential class action brought
by other tribes on the same issues, it
reasonably believed it was a member of
the putative class, and that, as a member
of the class, it was entitled to suspension
of the limitations period. The federal
government argued that no equitable
tolling was appropriate, that the Tribe had,
in any event, received all the monies to
which it was entitled, and that even if the
Tribe's claims relating to 1999 and 2000
"stable funding" were not barred by the
statute of limitations, the appropriated
money was spent. Finding equitable tolling
inappropriate, the court granted summary
judgment to the United States with respect
to the 1996-1998 claims and the 1999
and 2000 stable-funding claim, but denied
summary judgment with respect to the
1995 shortfall claim because that claim
accrued before the Contract Disputes
Act was amended to add a statute of
limitations.
In MacDonald v. U.S., 2011 WL 6783327
(S.D.Cal.), MacDonald, a Canada-born
member of the Squamish Nation, a
Canadian-recognized tribe, resided in the
United States under lawful permanent
resident (LPR) status by virtue of his
Canadian tribal membership pursuant to
provisions of the Immigration Act enacted
to implement the Jay Treaty of 1794. He
was charged with possession of cocaine
with intent to sell and possession of a
dangerous weapon. He pleaded guilty
to unlawful possession of cocaine with
intent to sell and was sentenced to 120
days in jail and three years of probation.
Upon his release from state custody, he
was taken into custody by the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), held
for several months and subjected to
deportation proceedings. At the removal
hearing, MacDonald admitted all of
the allegations, conceded removability,
waived appeal and was ordered removed
to Canada. After returning to the United
States in 2010 pursuant to his prior LPR
status, he persuaded the DHS that it had
made a mistake, resulting in the dismissal
of the previous removal proceedings.
McDonald then sued, under the Bivens
doctrine, alleging violations of the Fourth
Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Non-
Detention Act and Federal Tort Claims
Act. The district court (1) dismissed
MacDonald's Fourth Amendment claim on
the ground that, because MacDonald was
an alien for purposes of the Immigration
Act, the provision of the Act barring
courts from reviewing removal orders
applied, (2) the Court had jurisdiction to
hear MacDonald's Fifth Amendment Due
Process Claim, (3) the Non-Detention Act
claim would be dismissed because that
Act applies only to citizens and Canadian
Indians are not citizens, (4) the DHS
prosecutor was protected by absolute
immunity, and (5) the claims against
individual officials would be dismissed but
MacDonald would be permitted to amend
his complaint in two cases.
In Round Valley Indian Tribes v. U.S., 2011
WL 6938593 (Fed.Cl.), the Round Valley
Indian Tribes (Tribe) filed a Complaint in
the United States Court of Federal Claims
under the trust doctrine, alleging breach of
trust in regard to the management by the
United States of the trust funds of the Tribe
from 1855 to present. After the parties
reached a settlement agreement, individual
February 2012 1 Page 6
47