## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 17 45

__ __ __ __ __ _
St at e o f So ut h Dak ot a; Co un ty of * Ro be rts ; Si ss et on Sch oo l Di st ric t * No. 5 4- 2; Cit y

of S is se to n; * W il m on t Sc ho ol Dis tri ct No. 5 4- 7, *

* App el la nt s, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e
* Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta

. Uni te d S ta te s Dep art m en t o f * In te rio r; Lar ry

Echo Hawk, i n h is * of fic ia l ca pa ci ty as Ass is ta nt * Secr et ary of

Ind ia n Aff

ai rs , Uni te d * St at es Depa rtment o f In te rio r; * Mi ch ael Bla ck , in hi s o ffi ci al * cap aci ty as Dire ct or , Great Pla in s * Reg io na l Offi ce, Bu reau of I nd ia n * Affai rs ; Ru ss el l Hawk in s, i n h is * of fic ia l ca pa ci ty as Su pe rin te nd en t, * Lak e Trav ers e Age nc y , *

* App el le es

. *

*

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ *

* Si ss et on -Wahp et on Oy at e o f th e * Lak e Trav ers e Res erv at io n, *

* Am ic us on be ha lf o f * App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _Su bm it te d: Octo be r 26 , 20 11 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

11 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _ RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.
The Secr et ary of th e Uni te d S t a t e s Dep art m en t of th e In te rio r, th ro ug h th e Bu reau of I nd ia n Aff

ai rs (BIA an d, co ll ect iv el y , Secre ta ry ), an no un ced it s d eci si on
to acce pt fo ur pa rcel s of la nd wit hi n th e ge og rap hi c bo un da rie s of th e St at e of So ut h Dak ot a (So ut h Dako ta ) in to tru st fo r th e be ne fit of th e Si ss et on -Wahp et on Oy at e of th e Lak e Trav ers e Res erv at io n ( Tr i b e )
, a fed eral ly reco gn iz ed In di an tri be

. So ut h Dak ot a an d cert ai n of it s po li ti cal su bd iv is i o n s (co ll ect iv el y , S ta te ) ch al le ng ed th at de ci si on un de r t h e A d mi ni st rat iv e Pro ced ur e Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 70 1- 06

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of th e Secr et ary, an d th e St at e 1

ap pe al s. We di sm is s t he ap pe al

.

I. BACKGRO UND
A. Fac ts
In Ja nu ary 20 01
, th e Trib e’s le gi sl at iv e co un ci l en act ed a se rie s of res ol ut io ns
req ue st in g th at th e Secr et ary ex erci se it s st at ut or y au th or it y un de r § 5 of th e In di an Reo rg an iz at io n Act ( I R A), 25 U.S.C. § 46 5, an d cert ai n le gi sl at io n sp eci fic to th e Trib e, se e Pu b. L. No. 93 -4 91
, 88 St at

. 14 68 (1 97 4)
, an d Pu b. L. No. 98 -5 13
, 98 St at

. 24 11 (1 98 4)
, to ta ke in to tru st fo ur pa rcel s of la nd lo cat ed in Ro be rts Co un ty, So ut h Dak ot a. See Si sse ton -W ah pe ton Si ou x Trib e, Trib al Co un ci l Res ol ut io n Nos

. SWST01 -0 10 to -0 12
, -0 65

. The BIA no ti fie d th e St at e of th e Trib e’s pe ti ti on , an d th e St at e fil ed co m m en ts in op po si ti on to th e req ue st

.

The Hon or ab le Ro be rto A. Lan ge , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of So ut h Dak ot a.

-2

-The St at e ob jecte d to Si ss et on Age nc y Su pe rin te nd en t Ru ss el l Hawki ns ’ ro le

as th e BIA’s in it ia l de ci si on -m ak er w it h res pe ct to th e Trib e’s pe ti ti on s. The St at e

a l le ge d Su pe rin te nd en t Hawki ns was im pe rm is si bl y bi as ed in fav or of th e Tr i b e ’s

pe ti ti on be cau se of hi s hi st or y of go ve rn m en ta l s e rv ic e wit h th e Trib e. Su pe rin te nd en t Hawki ns is an en ro ll ed m em be r of th e Trib e. Befo re be co m in g Su pe rin te nd en t in 20 01
, Su pe rin te nd en t Hawki ns se rv ed as th e el ect ed co un ci l

c h ai rm an fo r th e Trib e. Dur in g Su pe rin te nd en t Hawki ns ’ te rm as ch ai rm an , t h e 2

co un ci l pa ss ed an or di na nc e pr oc la im in g th e Trib e, “ th ro ug h it s in he ren t an d ve st ed

au th or it y , [wo ul d] ex erci se juri sd ic ti on ov er its m em be rs an d no n- m em

be rs lo cat ed wit hi n In di an Co un try an d In di an Terri to r y of th e Lak e Trav ers e Res erv at io n as de fin ed in th e 18 67 Treat y .” Si ss et on -Wahp et on Si ou x Trib e of The Lak e Trav ers e R e s e r v a t i o n , O r d i n a n c e N o

. S WS T- O R D

- 7 9

- 0 2 A ( 1 9 8 9 )
, a v a i l a b l e a t ht tp :/ /www.n arf.o rg /n il l/ Co de s/ si ss et on wah pe to n%2 0c od e/ swju ris di ct io n.h tm

. 3

Su pe rin te nd en t Hawki ns br ou gh t th e St at e’s co nc ern s to th e at te nt io n of th e Reg io na l Di rect or of t he BIA Great Pla in s R eg io na l Offi ce (R eg io na l Di rect or ). In

a Sep te m be r 26
, 20 06 le tt er, Su pe rin te nd en t Hawki n s e x p l ai ne d, “ I th in k as Su pe rin te nd en t I sh ou ld si gn th es e de ci si on le tt ers

. . . b ut wou ld li ke y ou r in pu t as
to whe th er or no t th e [Offi ce of th e Fi el d S]oli ci to r sh ou ld rev ie w” t h e S t a t e ’s

Nearl y si x y ears el ap se d be twee n Su pe r in te nd en t Hawki ns ’ fin al te rm as 2

co un ci l ch ai rm an an d hi s ap po in tm en t wit h th e BIA. See So ut h Dak ot a v. U.S. Dep ’t. of Int eri or , 77 5 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 12 9, 1 13 9 (D.S.D. 2 01 1)

.
In 19 75
, th e Su pr em e Co ur t of th e Uni te d St at es he ld an 18 91 act of Co ng res s 3

“ te rm in at ed th e Lak e Trav ers e Res erv at io n, an d .

. . co ns eq ue nt ly[,] th e st at e co ur ts ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er co nd uc t on n on -In di an la nd s wit hi n th e 18 67 res erv at io n bo rd ers .” See DeCo te au v. Dis t. Cn ty. Ct

. fo r th e Ten th Ju d. Dis t., 42 0 U.S. 42 5, 42 8 (1 97 5)

. The te rri to r y en co m pa ss ed by th is tri ba l or di na nc e in cl ud ed th e ci ti es of Si ss et on an d Peev er, So ut h Dak ot a, an d in cl ud ed la nd s ov e r w h i c h th e St at e ha d

ex erci se d juri sd ic ti on si nc e th e 18 91 al lo tm en t of th e Trib e’s res erv at io n. See id

. at 44 9.

-3

-co m

m en ts

. The Reg io na l Dire ct or rep li ed in a N o ve m be r 22
, 20 06 le tt er th at th e St at e’s al le ga ti on s o f bi as “ ho ld no va li di ty w ha ts oe ve r,” an d

[t]he re is no st at ut e or la w th at st at es em pl oyee s o f t h e [BIA] are no t al lo wed to wor k on th e res erv at io n in whi ch th ey are en ro ll ed m em be rs

. W e do no t se e an y is su es or co nf li ct of in te res ts w i t h Su pe rin te nd en t Ru ss el l Hawki ns as th e App ro vi ng Offi ci al fo r On- res erv at io n fee to tru st acq ui si ti on s fo r th e . . . Tribe

.

In Ja nu ary an d Feb ru ary 20 07
, Su pe rin te nd en t Hawki ns is su ed fo ur le tt ers of de ci si on de cl ari ng hi s i nt en ti on to acce pt th e fo ur pa rcel s in to tru st on be ha lf of th e Trib e. The S ta te so ug ht rev ie w of t he se de ci si on s wi th th e Reg io na l Di rect or . The Reg io na l Dire ct or up he ld Su pe rin te nd en t Hawki ns ’ de ci s i o n s on th e m eri ts

. Reg ard in g th e St at e ’s a l l e ga ti on of bi as ag ai ns t Su pe rin te nd en t Hawki ns , th e Reg io na l Dire ct or fo un d “ th e St at e [d id ] no t su bm it [] an y su bs ta nt ia l in fo rm at io n to do cu m en t th at an y BIA de ci si on m ak er

. . . di sr eg ard ed an y f ed eral reg ul at io ns or la ws” an d Su pe rin te nd en t Haw k i n s was “ cap ab le of m ak in g a pr of es si on al an d ob jecti ve de ci si on on [th e] fee to tru st acq ui si ti on [s ]. ”

The St at e ap pe al ed th e Reg io na l Dire ct or ’s de ci si on to th e In te rio r Bo ard of
In di an App eal s (IBI A). See Ro be rts Cn ty., S.D. v. A c t i n g Great Pl ai ns Reg ’l Dir., BIA, 51 IBI A 3 5 (2 00 9)

. The IBIA reject ed th e St at e’s bi as arg um en ts , rem ark in g th at th e St at e “ of

fere d no ev id en ce de m on st rat in g t ha t ei th er [Su pe rin te nd en t Hawki ns ’] m em

be rs hi p in th e Trib e or hi s fo rm er se rv ic e a s a t r ib al of fic ia l im pr op erl y in flu en ced hi s de ci si on ,” an d “ th e St at e’s ba ld as su mp t i o n t ha t [Su pe rin te nd en t Hawki ns ’] st at us ne ces s a r i l y cal ls in to qu es ti on hi s im pa rti al it y is i n s u f f i c i en t to de m on st rat e ei th er th e ap pe aran ce of bi as or act ua l bi as .” Id

. at 4 9

. The IBIA als o fou nd th e Reg io na l Direct or ’s and th e IBIA’s ind ep en de nt rev ie w of
Su pe rin te nd en t Hawki ns ’ de ci si on su ffi ci en tl y pr ot ect ed th e St at e’s rig ht “ ag ai ns t an

erro ne ou s or im

pr op e r d e c i s io n.” Id

. at 49 n.1 0. The IBIA affi rm ed th e Reg io na l Dire ct or ’s dec is io ns on th e m eri ts . Id. at 53

.

-4

-B. Pro cedu ra l H is to ry

Hav in g th us ex ha us te d it s ad m in is tra ti ve re m ed ie s, the St at e br ough t th is act io n

un de r th e APA, se ek in g to pr ev en t th e Secr et ary fro m co m pl et in g th e la nd -in to -tr us t
acq ui si ti on s. The St at e ch al le ng ed bo th th e Secr et ary’ s de ci si on on th e m eri ts an d
Su pe rin te nd en t Hawk in s’ par ti ci pa ti on in th e d eci si on

.

The St at e al le ge d, “ [t]he S t a t e s , as pa rt of th e co ns ti tu ti on al ba rg ai n, were im pl ic it ly gu aran te ed
, as a m at te r of bi nd in g Co ns ti tu ti on al la w, du e pr oc es s
pr ot ect io ns

. . . at le as t eq ui va le nt to th at ” affo rd ed to Uni te d St at es ci ti zen s un de r th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se s of th e Fi fth an d Fo ur t e e n t h A mend m en ts

. The St at e fu rth er

m ai nt ai ne d

th e S t a te s an d th ei r po li ti cal su bd iv is io ns are th e be ne fic ia ry of th e Co ng r e s s i o n a l pl an pr ov id in g fo r de le ga ti on of au th or it y to ta ke la nd in to tru st on ly whe n al l li ti ga nt s or pa rti ci pa nt s in a pr oc eed in g se ek in g to ta ke th at la nd in to tru st are acco rd ed d u e pr oc es s eq ui va le nt to th at pr ov id ed by the Fif

th an d F ou rte en th Am en dm en t[s ].

The St at e as se rte d t he Secr et ary’ s la nd -in to -tr us t de ci si on vi ol at ed it s du e pr oc es s rig ht s be cau se “ [a]s a res ul t of Su pe rin te nd en t Hawki ns ’ li fe-l on g m em be rs hi p in th e Trib e an d hi s repe at ed po si ti on s of lead ers hi p in th e Trib e, Hawki ns [co ul d] no t .

. . act as a ne ut ral
, un bi as ed d e c i s i o n mak er wit h reg ard to hi s Trib e’s ap pl ic at io ns to
ta ke lan d i nt o t ru st .”

Th e B IA fil ed a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t
gr an te d. Se e So ut h Dak ot a, 75 5 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 13 2, 1 14 6. Th e St at e ap pe al s.

-5

-II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Sta nda rd o f Rev ie w

“ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of sum m ary jud gm en t de no vo .” Mo rri so n Ent ers ., LL C v. Drav o Co rp ., 63 8 F.3 d 59 4, 60 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Co le v. H o mi e r Dis t. Co
., 59 9 F.3 d 85 6, 86 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )). Su m m ary jud gm en t i s
ap pr op ria te whe re the re is no ge nu in e di sp ut e of m at eri al fact an d th e m ov in g par ty is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w. Id .; se e al so Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a). W he th er
ag en cy act io n vi ol at es th e Co ns ti tu ti on is a qu es ti on of la w whi ch we rev ie w de no vo

. See Co al

. fo r Fai r an d Equ it ab le Reg ul at io n of Doc ks on Lak e of th e Ozark s v. FERC,
29 7 F .3d 77 1, 7 78 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2)

.

B. Sta ndi ng The BIA arg ue s fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al th e St at e la ck s st an di ng to br in g it s du e pr oc es s cl ai m s. Arti cl e III st an di ng is a “ th res h o ld in qu iry,” whi ch m us t be

res ol ve d be fo re reac hi ng th e m eri ts of a su it

. See Ci ty of Cl ark so n Vall ey v. Mi ne ta , 49 5 F.3 d 56 7, 56 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). “ To sh ow Arti cl e III st an di ng , a pl ai nt iff ha s th e b u rd en of pr ov in g: (1 ) th at he or sh e su ffer ed an in jury-in -fac t, (2 ) a c a u s a l rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e in jury an d th e ch al le ng ed co nd uc t, an d (3 ) th at th e in jury
li ke ly wil l be red res se d by a fav or ab le de ci si on .” Pu ck et v. Hot Sp rin gs Sch

. Dis t. No. 23 -2 , 5 26 F.3 d 11 51 , 1 15 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ti n g St eg er v. Fran co , I nc ., 2 28
F.3 d 88 9, 89 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ); see al so Lujan v. Defen de rs of Wil dl ife , 50 4 U.S. 5 55 , 56 0- 61 (19 92 ).

The St at e’s cl ai m sa ti sf ie s th e m in im

um co ns ti tu ti on al req ui rem e nt s fo r
st an di ng

. St at es ge ne ral ly la ck au th or it y to reg ul at e In di an tri be s an d tri be m em be rs

on tru st pr op ert y

. See, e.g ., Yan kt on Si ou x Trib e v. Po dh rad sk y , 60 6 F.3 d 99 4, 10 06
, 10 10 -1 1 (8t h Cir. 20 10 ) (rec og ni zi ng la nd s tak en in to tru st by the BIA u nd er § 5 of th e IRA are In di an c o u nt ry , an d “ as a ge ne ral ru le In di an co un try fal ls un de r th e
pr im ary ci vi l, cri m in al
, an d reg ul at or y juri sd ic ti on of th e fed eral go ve rn m en t an d th e

res id en t Trib e rat he r th an th e st at es ”). As an im m ed ia te co ns eq ue nc e of pl aci ng th e

-6

-fo ur di sp ut ed pa rcels int o tr ust , Ro be rt s Co un ty wil l lo se $2 54 .92
, $2 59 .34
, $1 30 0.8 6,

an d $1 47 4.8 0, res pe ct iv el y , in an nu al pr op ert y ta xe s. It is reas on ab ly cert ai n th e St at e wil l be de pr iv ed of ad di ti on al ta x rev en ue s, be cau se th e St at e is “ cat eg or ic al [ly] ”

pr oh ib it ed fro m la yi n g a di rect ta x “ on a tri be or on tri ba l m em be rs in si de In di an

co un try.” Okl a. Tax Co m m ’n v. Ch ic ka sa w Nati on , 51 5 U.S. 45 0, 45 8 (1 99 5)

. Thu s, th e St at e ha s a di rect an d ta ng ib le eco no m ic in te res t in th e ag en c y ’s de ci si on

. See Aki ach ak Nati ve Cm

ty. v. U.S. Dep ’t of In te rio r, 58 4 F. Su pp

. 2d

. 1, 7 (D.D.C. 20 08 ) (rec og ni zi ng a st at e’s in te res t in “ th e lo s s o f t a x in g an d reg ul at or y au th or it y ” ov er la nd s t ak en in to tru st was s uf fic ie nt to sat is fy

Arti cl e III s ta nd in g)

.

To pr oc eed on it s cl ai m , th e St at e al so m us t sa ti sf y th e pr ud en ti al st an di ng
req ui rem en t by sh owi ng it s al le ge d in jury “ arg ua bl y fal l[s ] wit hi n th e zo ne of in te res ts pr ot ect ed or reg ul at ed by th e st at ut or y pr ov is io n or co ns ti tu ti on al gu aran te e in vo ke d in th e su it .” Ben ne tt v. Sp ear, 52 0 U.S. 1 5 4, 16 2 (1 99 7) ; se e al so Nat’l Cred it Uni on Adm in . v. Fi rs t Nat ’l Ban k & Trus t Co ., 52 2 U.S. 4 79 , 49 2 (1 99 8)

.

B e cau se § 70 2 of th e APA by it se lf do es no t co nf er pr ud en ti al st an di ng , s e e Ras m us se n v. Uni te d St at es , 42 1 F.2 d 77 6, 77 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 70 ) (rec og ni zi ng th e APA do es no t su pp ly st an di ng ), we m us t de te rm in e whe th er th e St at e is se ek in g to en fo rce

a rig ht ari si ng ou t of th e Fi fth Am en dm en t’s Due Pro ces s Cl au se or un de r th e va rio us
st at ut es au th or iz in g th e Secr et ary to acq ui re la nd in to tru st fo r th e be ne fit of th e Trib e. The fir st qu es ti on is eas il y res ol ve d. The St at e is no t a “ pe rs on ” wit hi n th e m ean in g of th e Fi fth Am en dm en t’s Du e Pro ces s C la us e. See Sou th Caro li na v. Kat zen ba ch
, 38 3 U.S. 30 1, 32 3- 24 (1 96 6) (“ The wor d ‘pers on ’ in th e co nt ex t of th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se of th e Fi fth Am en dm en t can no t, by an y reas on ab le m od e of in te rp ret at io n, be

ex pa nd ed to en co m

pa ss th e St at es of th e Uni on .”). Thu s, th e St at e’s cl ai m do es no t 4

The ci rcu it s are sp li t as to whe th er a st at e’s po li ti cal su bd iv is io ns are affo rd ed 4 du e pr oc es s un de r th e Fi fth Am en dm en t. Co m pa re In Re Rea l Est

. Tit le & Set tl em en t Serv s. Ant it ru st Lit ig
., 86 9 F.2 d 76 0, 76 5 n.3 (3 d Ci r. 19 89 ) (h ol di ng “ sc ho ol bo ard s
are pe rs on s wit hi n th e m ean in g of th e Fi fth Am en dm en t d ue pro ces s cl au se ”), wit h

-7

-fal l wit hi n th e “ zo ne of in te res ts ” pr ot ect ed by th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se , an d th e St at e

la ck s s ta nd in g t o a ss ert su ch a cl ai m . See Be nn et t, 5 20 U.S. at 1 62

.

W he th er t he Sta te ha s s ta nd in g u nd er t he st at ut es au th or iz in g t he Secr et ary’ s la nd -in to -tr us t acq ui si ti on s is a m or e co m pl ex qu es ti on , bu t it is a qu es ti on we ne ed

no t a n s w e r n o w. The St at e di d no t rai se an y st at ut or y cl ai m s on ap pe al

. In it s
op en in g br ie f, th e St at e fram ed it s arg u men t as fo ll ows : “ [t]he Due Pro ces s Cl au se
pr oh ib it s a cu rren t m em be r an d f o r mer m ul ti -te rm Ch ai rm an of th e Trib e fro m

a dju di cat in g whe th er to gr an t th e Trib e’s m ul ti pl e la nd in tru st ap pl ic at i o n s

. ” Th e St at e ex pl ai ne d “ th e St at e’s ch al le ng e is cen te red on th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se of th e Co ns ti tu ti on ,” an d ex te ns iv el y di sc us se d “ th e pr op er ap p r o a ch to be ta ke n whe n

ev al ua ti ng a cl ai m th at du e pr oc es s pr oh ib it s a de ci si on m ak er fro m si t t i n g on a
pa rti cu la r cas e.”

In it s rep ly br ie f, th e St at e refe ren ced it s co m pl ai nt , whi ch as se rte d th e St at e’s rig ht to du e pr oc es s de riv ed fro m an “ im pl ic it ” co ns ti tu ti on al an d st at ut or y gu aran te e of “ du e pr oc es s eq ui va le nt to th at pr ov id ed by th e Fi fth an d Fo ur te en t h
Am en dm en t[s ]. ” Bec au se th e St at e fai le d to as se rt th is th eo ry in it s op en in g br ie f an d ha s no t ci te d an y le ga l au th or it y pl ai nl y de m on st rat in g th e ex is te nc e of su ch a rig ht
, 5

Ci ty of E. St

. Lou is v. Ci r. Ct

. fo r th e Twent ie th Ju d. Ci r., St

. Cl ai r Cn ty, Ill
., 98 6 F.2 d 11 42
, 11 44 (7 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (h ol di ng “ [m ]uni ci pa li ti es

. . . are no t ‘pers on s’ wit hi n th e

m ean in g o f th e Due Pro ces s C la us e” o f th e Fi fth or F ou rte en th Am en dm en ts ).

The St at e ha s no t arg ue d on ap pe al or be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t th at it s po li ti cal

su bd iv is io ns m ay as se rt a du e pr oc es s cl ai m in th ei r own rig ht

. W hi le we ha ve so m e do ub t po li ti cal su bd iv is io ns of th e st at e are affo rd ed co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s ap art fro m th os e whi ch de riv e fro m th e st at e it se lf, we ha ve no t de ci de d th is is su e p r e v i o u sl y , an d we d ecl in e to do so no w.

Cf. Okl ah om a ex

. rel

. Okl a. Tax Co m m ’n v. In t’l Reg is tra ti on Pl an , In c., 45 5 5 F.3 d 11 07
, 11 14 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (rejec ti ng a st at e ’s arg um en t th at “ a un iv ers al

-8

-we de em th e arg um en t waiv ed

. See, e.g ., Pri m ary Care In ve st or s, Sev en , In c. v. PHP

Heal th care Co rp ., 98 6 F.2 d 12 08
, 12 12 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (ex pl ai ni ng un de r Fed eral
Ru le of App e l l a t e Pro ced ur e 28 (a)( 5)
, a pa rty’ s fai lu re to sp eci fy an erro r in it s
op en in g br ie f an d su pp or t it s al le ga ti on s wit h rel ev an t au th or ity m ay res ul t in waiv er).

C. Meri ts Bec au se th e St at e la cks st an di ng to br in g a co ns ti tu ti on al du e pr oc es s cl ai m an d do es no t rais e an y ad di ti on al arg um en ts on ap pe al
, th e St at e is no t en ti tl ed to rel ie f.
We ex pr es s no op in io n as to th e m eri ts of th e St at e’s arg um en ts wit h res p e c t t o Su pe rin te nd en t Hawki ns or th e va li di ty of th e Secr et ary’ s de ci si on -m ak in g pr oc es s.

II I. CONCLUSI ON
W e d is m is s t he ap pe al for lac k o f st an di ng

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

pr in ci pl e of jus ti ce” affo rd ed th e st at e a jud ic ia ll y en fo rcea bl e rig ht to pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s in a fed eral ag en cy ’s di sp ut e-re so lu ti on pr oc e e d i n gs );Az

. Dep ’t of Pu b. W el fare v. Dep’t of Heal th
, Edu c. & W el fare
, 44 9 F.2d 45 6, 47 8- 79 (9 th Ci r. 19 71 ) (d is ap pr ov in g a st at e’s arg um en t th e Ten th Am en dm en t to th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on “ em

bo di es th e St at e’s co ns ti tu ti on al ly no ne xp li ci t fu nd am en ta l rig ht []” to pro ced ur al fai rn es s i n fe de ral ag en cy pro ceed in gs ).

-9

-