NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 12a0715n.06 Case No. 11- 3113 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT
HARVEST INS TITUTE F REEDMAN F EDERATION, LL C; LEATRICE TANNER-BROWN, P laintif fs-App ellants,

v. UNITED STATE S OF AMERICA; THE HONORABLE KEN SALAZAR, S E C R E T A R Y O F T H E D E P A R T M E N T O F I N T E R I O R O F T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S , Defendan ts-Appellees.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FR OM THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE S OUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: BATCHEL DER, Chief Judge; McK EAGU E, Circuit Judge; QUIST, District Judge. * ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Chief Judge. Plaintif fs -A p pellants Har

vest I nstitut e Fr eedma n Fe dera tion and L eatr ice Tanne r-B rown want t h e fe d er al courts to hold that the Claims Resolution Act, No. 111-291, 124 Stat. 3064 (2010) (“ t h e Ac t ”), is unconstitutional beca use it perpe tuates rac ial discrimination ag ainst former slaves—known as the Fr eedme n—of cer tain Native Americ an tribes. C o n g ress enac ted the Act to implement the settlement betwee n the parties in Cobell v. Salaz ar , No. 1: 96CV01285-J R (D.D.C.), which was a class-a ct i o n l awsuit broug ht by a number of individual Native Americ ans ag ainst the Secre taries of the Depa rt me n ts of the I nterior and

T h e H o n o r a b l e G o r d o n J a y Q u i s t , U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t J u d g e f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f M i c h i g a n , s i t t i n g * b y d e s i g n a t i o n .N o . 1 1

- 3 1 1 3 , H a r v e s t I n s t i t u t e , e t a l

. v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , e t a l

. of the Trea sury . The class in Cobell claimed that the United States had brea ched its fiduciar y duty
to administer proper ly t h e I ndividual I ndian Money (I I M) Acc ounts held on the behalf of cer tain Native Ame rica

ns. The Harvest plainti ffs c laim that the Fr eedme n wer e wr ong fully excluded from ownership of the I I M Acc ounts due to rac ism, and that it perpe tuates rac ial discrimination for Congr ess to not ad d ress their claims at the same time that it addre sses the claims of the Cobell class. Along wit h their Complaint, the Har

vest plaintiffs moved the district court for a temporar y restra ining order ; the United S tates responded by filing Rule 12(b)( 1) and 12(b)( 6) m otions to dis miss based on lack of subject matter jur isdiction and failure to state a c laim, respec tively

. The district court dismiss ed the case , holding that the Har vest plaintiffs did not have standing beca use any injury to them is not fairly trac eable to the United States and beca use the injury will not be re dresse d by

a fa vorable decision. The H arve st plaintiffs timely appea led. After car efully revie wing the district court’s opinion, the briefs, and the rec ord in this case ,
we conclude that the district court did not err in dismiss ing the case . As the district court corr ectly
set out the applicable law and corr ectly applied that law to the undisputed materia l f acts contained in the rec ord, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no jurisprudential purpose. Acc ording ly , for the rea sons stat e d in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’ s w e ll

- rea soned opinion, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the district cour t.

2