# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 26 00

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

San dy Lake Ba nd of M is si ss ip pi Ch ip pe wa

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca; Ken S al azar , Secr et ary of

th e In te rio r; Ke vi n Wash bu rn , 1

Ass is ta nt Secr et ary fo r In di an Affai rs ; Jo di Gil le tt e, Acti ng Depu ty A ss is ta nt
Secr et ary fo r Po li cy

an d Eco no m ic

Dev el op m en t, In di an Affai rs ; an d
Dian e Ro se n, Re gi on al Dire ct or , Mi dwe st Reg io na l Offi ce, Bu reau of

In di an Affai rs

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 4, 2 01 3
Fil ed : M ay

20 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Kev in W as hb ur n is su bs ti tu te d fo r hi s pr ed e c e s s o r , Larry Ech o Hawk, 1

pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro ced ur e 4 3( c)(2 ).Befo re W OLLMAN an d COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , an d HOLMES, Dis t r i c t 2

Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

San dy Lak e Ban d of Mi ss is si p p i C h i p pe wa (San dy Lak e) req ue st ed th at th e

Secr et ary of th e In te rio r (Sec ret ary) ho ld an el ect io n so th at San dy Lak e’s m em be rs

c o ul d vo te on a pr op os ed co ns ti tu ti on

. Afte r th e req ue st was de ni ed

, San d y La k e

fil ed su it

, se ek in g an or de r di rect in g th e Secr et ary to cal l an el ect io n. The di st ric t

co ur t di sm is se d t he su it for lac k o f su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on be cau se San dy Lake 3

ha d no t ex ha us te d it s ad m in i st rat iv e rem ed ie s. The di st ric t co ur t al so refu se d to

acce pt th e pr op os ed am en de d co m pl ai nt

, whi ch ch al le ng ed th e Secr et ary’ s au th or it y

to pr om ul ga te th e reg ul at io n de fin in g th e te rm “ In di an .” San dy Lak e di d no t ap pe al

fro m th e fir st jud gm en t an d di d no t ex ha us t it s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s. San dy Lak e

la te r fil ed a se co nd la wsu it

, rai si ng cl ai m s th at it ha d al le ge d in it s fir st co m pl ai nt an d

i t s p r o po se d am en de d co m pl ai nt

. San dy Lak e ap pe al s fro m th e ad ve rs e gr an t of

su m m ary jud gm en t o n i ts cla im s al le ge d i n t he sec on d l aws ui t.

W e are bo un d by th e di st ric t co ur t’s or ig in al de te rm in at io n th at it la ck ed

su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti o n to he ar San dy Lak e’s cl ai m s. Is su e pr ecl us io n th us
d i s a l l ows us fro m reac hi ng th e m eri ts of th is ap pe al

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi r m t h e
di sm is sa l o f th e cas e, m od ifyin g i t t o b e wit ho ut pre jud ic e.

The Hon or ab le P.K. Hol m es , III, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 2

th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.

The Hon or ab le Don ov an W

. Fran k, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju d g e fo r th e 3

Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.

-2

-The In di an Reo rg an iz at io n Act of 19 34 (IRA) pr ov id es th at “ [a]ny In di an tri be

sh al l ha ve th e rig ht to or ga ni ze fo r it s co m m on welf are, an d m ay ad op t an ap pr op ria te

co ns ti tu ti on a n d b yl a w s [ .] ” 25 U.S.C. § 47 6( a). A tri be m ay req ue st th at th e

Secr et ary h ol d an el ect io n to al lo w t he tri be to vo te on a p r o p o s ed co ns ti tu ti on an d
bylaws

. Sh ou ld a tri be do so , th e Secr et ary m us t “ cal l an d ho ld an el ect io n

. . . wit hi n

on e hu nd red an d ei gh ty da y s aft er th e rece ip t of a tri ba l req ue st fo r an el ect io n[ .] ” Id

. § 47 6( c)(1 )(A). The IRA de fin es th e te rm “ In di an ” to in cl ud e “ al l pe rs on s of In di an
de sc en t who are m em

be rs of an y reco gn iz ed In di an tri be no w u n d e r Fed eral
juri sd ic ti on , an d al l pe rs on s who are de sc en da nt s of su ch m em be rs who were, on Ju ne 1, 19 34

, res id in g wit hi n th e pr es en t bo un da rie s of an y In di an r e s e r v a t io n[ .] ” Id

. § 47 9. The te rm “ tri be ” refe rs to “ an y In di an tri be

, or ga ni zed ba nd

, pu eb lo

, or t h e

In di an s res id in g on on e res erv at io n.” Id

. Co ng res s de le ga te d to th e Secr et ary th e

au th or it y to pr om

ul ga te ru le s an d reg ul at i on s go ve rn in g se cret ari al el ect io ns

. Id

. § 4 76 (a)( 1)

.

The Secr et ary is req ui red to “ pu bl is h in th e Fed eral Reg is te r a li st of al l In di an

t r ib es whi ch th e Secr et ary reco gn iz es to be el ig ib le fo r th e sp eci al pr og ram s a n d

se rv ic es pr ov id ed by th e Uni te d St at es to In di an s be cau se of th ei r st at us as In di an s.”

2 5 U

. S

. C

. § 47 9a -1 (a). Pu rs ua nt to au th or it y de le ga te d by th e Secr et ary, th e Dep art m en t of th e In te rio r (DOI) ha s pr om ul ga te d reg ul at io ns an d pr oc ed ur es fo r

reco gn iz in g In di an tri be s. See 25 C.F.R. Pt

. 83 (en ti tl ed “ Pro ced ur es fo r Est ab li sh in g

Tha t an Am eri can In di an Gro up Exi st s As an In di an Trib e”). The reg ul at io ns de fin e

th e te rm “ tri be ” to in cl ud e “ [a]ny In di an en ti ty th at ha s n o t vo te d to ex cl ud e it se lf

fro m th e [IR A] an d i s i nc lu de d, o r is el ig ib le to be in cl ud ed

, am on g th os e tri be s .

. . li st ed in th e Fed eral Reg is te r[.]” Id

. § 81 .1(w)

. An In di an gr ou p th at is no t li st ed as

a rec og ni zed Ind ia n t rib e m ay pe ti ti on th e DOI fo r ack no wled gm en t, a pr oc es s th at

can ta ke se ve ral y ears

. See ge ne ral ly Mi am i Nati on of In di an s of In d., In c. v. U.S.
Dep ’t of th e In te rio r, 25 5 F.3 d 34 2, 34 5- 46 (7 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (Twelv e y ears aft er Mi am i

Nati on fil ed i t s pe ti ti on , th e DOI ru le d th at it di d no t m eet th e cri te ria fo r
ack no wled gm en t.).

-3

-San dy Lak e is no t in cl ud ed on th e li st of reco gn iz ed In di an tri be s. In Ju ly

20 07

, San dy Lak e req ue st ed an el ect io n s o t ha t i t co ul d v ot e to ad op t a co ns ti tu ti on

an d bylaws

. The Su pe rin te nd en t of th e Mi nn es ot a Age nc y of th e Bu reau of I nd ia n

Affai rs (BIA) de ni ed th e req ue st

. The Mi dwe st Reg io na l Dire ct or of th e BIA up he ld

th e de ci si on , fin di ng th at San dy Lak e was no t el ig ib le to ho ld an el ect io n be cau se it

was no t a reco gn iz ed In di an tri be

, an d th e In te rn al Bo ard of In di an App eal s di sm is se d

San dy Lak e’s ap pe al

. San dy Lak e la te r fil ed su it in fed eral di st ric t co ur t ag ai ns t th e
Uni te d St at es an d cert ai n fed eral of fic ia ls

, al le gi ng a nu m

be r of cl ai m s rel at ed to th e
de ni al of th e req ue st fo r an el ect io n. The de fen da nt s m ov ed to di sm is s fo r la ck of

su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on

. The reaf te r, San dy La k e fil ed an am en de d co m pl ai nt

, whi ch ad de d cl ai m s ch al le ng in g th e Secr et ary’ s au th or it y to pr om ul ga te reg ul at io ns

go ve rn in g s ecre ta ria l el ect io ns

.

In Ju ly 20 11

, th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e su it wit ho ut pr ejud ic e fo r la ck of

su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on

. Sp eci fic al ly, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at San dy Lak e ha d

fai le d to ex ha us t it s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed y , th e DOI ack no wled gm en t pr oc es s. San dy

Lak e Ban d of Mi ss

. Ch ip pe wa v. Uni te d St at es , No. 10 -3 80 1, 20 11 W L 26 01 84 0, at

*4 (D. Mi nn

. Ju ly 1, 20 11 ) (h erei na fte r San dy Lak e I). In de te rm in in g th at it la ck ed
juri sd ic ti on , th e di st ric t co ur t “ reject [ed ] [San dy La k e ’s] co nt en ti on th at 25 C.F.R.
§ 81 .1(w) co nt rad ic ts th e de fin it io n of In di an tri be in 25 U.S.C. § 47 9.” Id

. Mo reo ve r, th e di st ric t co ur t he ld th at th e pr op os ed am en de d co m pl ai nt was no t ti m el y

fil ed an d no te d th at th e am en dm en ts no ne th el es s “ fai l[e d] to cu re th e la ck of su bjec t

m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er t he San dy Lake Ba nd ’s cla im s.” Id . at * 5 n .4. San dy Lake

di d n ot pe ti ti on th e DOI fo r fed eral reco gn it io n an d di d n ot ap pe al fro m th e d is tri ct

co ur t’s jud gm en t.

In Sep te m

be r 20 11

, San dy Lak e f i l e d a se co nd la wsu it ag ai ns t th e sa m e
de fen da nt s (co ll ect iv el y , th e go ve rn m en t). On th e go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n, th e di st ric t

co ur t di sm is se d th ree cl ai m s (co un ts two

, th ree, an d fo ur ) on th e ba si s of res jud ic at a.
The go ve rn m en t argu ed th at res jud ic at a al so ba rred co ns id erat io n o f th e rem ai ni ng

-4

-t h r e e c la im s (co un ts on e, fiv e, an d si x)

, whi ch were rai se d in th e fir st la wsu it ’s

p r o p o s e d am en de d co m

pl ai nt

. The di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered th e m eri ts of th os e
cl ai m s, ho wev er, co nc lu di ng th at it s “d i s c u ss io n of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on as it

rel at ed to th e pr op os ed Am en de d Com pl ai nt was br ie f an d no te d in a fo ot no te .” D.

Ct

. Ord er of May 4, 20 11

, at 14 (h erei na fte r San dy Lak e II). The di st ric t c ou rt

ex pl ai ne d t h at it ha d reject ed th e pr op os ed am en de d co m pl ai nt “ be cau se it was

un ti m el y fil ed

, an d Pl ai nt iff s di d no t ob ta in Defen da nt s’ co ns en t or l e av e of th e

Co ur t.” Id . at 1 3.

In co un ts on e, fiv e, an d si x, San dy La k e c h a l le ng ed th e pr om ul ga ti on of 25

C.F.R. § 81 .1(w) an d al le ge d th at th e reg ul at io n’s de fin it io n of “ tri be ” co nf li ct ed wit h

th e pl ai n m ean in g of th e st at ut or y la ng ua ge “ reco gn iz ed In di an tri be ,” in vi ol at io n of

th e IRA (co un t on e) an d th e Adm in is tra ti ve Pro ced ur e Act (APA) (co un t fiv e) an d in

br each of th e go ve rn m en t’s fid uc ia ry ob li ga ti on owe d to San dy Lak e (co un t si x)

. The

di st ric t c o u r t h e l d th at th e ph ras e “ reco gn iz ed In di an tri be ” se t fo rth in 25 U.S.C.
§ 47 9 was am

bi gu ou s an d th at th e BIA’s de fin it io n of th e te rm “ tri be ” se t fo rth in 25
C.F.R. § 81 .1(w) was b as ed on a pe rm is si bl e co ns tru ct io n o f th e st at ut e.

On ap pe al

, San dy Lak e arg ue s th at th e st at ut or y la ng ua ge is un am bi gu ou s, th at

th e reg ul at io n is vo id b e c a u s e i t c on fli ct s wit h th e st at ut e, an d th at San dy Lak e is

en ti tl ed to an el ect io n bec au se it m eet s th e st at ut or y lan gu ag e se t fo rth in 25 U.S.C.
§ 4 79 . San dy Lake d oe s n ot ch al le ng e th e d is m is sa l o f co un ts two , t hr ee, an d fo ur

. The go ve rn m en t m ai nt ai ns th at th e di st ric t cou rt sh ou ld ha ve di sm is se d cou nt s on e,
fiv e, an d si x on th e ba si s of res ju d i c at a be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t pr ev io us ly ha d

de ci de d t he is su e o f su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on

.

“ The pr in ci pl es of re s ju di ca ta ap pl y to qu es ti on s of juri sd ic ti on as well as to

ot he r is su e s

. ” A m

. Su r. Co

. v. Bal dwi n, 28 7 U.S. 15 6, 16 6 (1 93 2)

. Res jud ic at a

in co rp or at es th e co nc ep ts of bo th is su e pr ec l u s i o n an d cl ai m pr ecl us io n. Tay lo r v.

St ur ge ll

, 55 3 U.S. 88 0, 89 2 (2 00 8)

. “Is s u e p r ecl us io n refe rs to th e effe ct of a

-5

-jud gm en t in fo recl os in g rel it ig at io n of a m at te r th at ha s be en li ti ga te d an d de ci de d.”

Mi gr a v

. Wa r ren Ci ty Sch . Di st . B d. of Edu c., 46 5 U.S. 7 5, 77 n.1 (1 98 4)

. A p art y
is pr ecl ud ed fro m li ti ga ti ng su ch a m at te r in a su bs eq ue nt cas e, “ whe th er o r no t th e
is su e ari se s on th e sa m e or a di ffer en t c la im .” New Ham ps hi re v. Mai ne , 53 2 U.S.

74 2, 74 8- 49 (2 00 1) (ci ti ng Res ta te m en t (Sec on d) of Ju dg m en ts §§ 17

, 27 (1 98 0) ; D.

Sh ap iro

, Ci vi l Pro ced ur e: Prec lu si on in Ci vi l Acti on s 32

, 46 (2 00 1) ). W e ha ve sa id

th at is su e p recl us io n h as fiv e el em en ts :

(1 ) th e pa rty s ou gh t to be pr ecl ud ed in th e se co nd su it m us t ha ve be en

a pa rt y, o r in pr iv it y wit h a pa rty, to th e or ig in al la wsu it ; (2 ) th e is su e

so ug ht to be pr ecl ud ed m us t b e th e sa m e as th e is su e in vo lv ed in th e
pr io r act io n; (3 ) th e is su e so ug ht to be pr ecl ud ed mu s t h av e be en
act ua ll y li ti ga te d in th e pr io r act io n; (4 ) th e is su e so ug ht to be pr ecl ud ed

m us t ha ve be en de te rm in ed by a v a li d an d fin al jud gm en t; an d (5 ) th e de te rm i na ti on in th e pr io r act io n m us t ha ve be en es se nt ia l to th e pr io r jud gm en t.

Ro bi ne tt e v. Jo ne s, 47 6 F.3 d 58 5, 58 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ti ng And ers on v. Gen ui ne

Part s C o., In c., 12 8 F .3d 12 67 , 12 73 (8t h C ir. 1 99 7) ).

San dy Lak e di sp ut es th e se co nd ele m en t, ar gu in g t ha t i ts co m pl ai nt in San dy

Lak e II al le ge s n ew th eo rie s of rel ie f an d a di ffer en t ba si s fo r su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on

. Acco rd in gl y , th e arg um en t go es , th e de te rm in at io n in San dy Lak e I th at

th e di st ric t co ur t la ck ed su bjec t m at te r juri s di ct io n to he ar th e cl ai m s rai se d in th at

co m pl ai nt can no t pr ecl ud e th e di st ric t co ur t f r o m c o n si de rin g in San dy Lak e II

whe th er it ha d ju r i s d i c t io n to he ar th e cl ai m s rai se d in th is co m pl ai nt

. As se t fo rth

ab ov e, co un ts on e, fiv e, an d si x ch al le ng e th e Secr et ary’ s au th or it y to pr om ul ga te 25

C.F.R. § 81 .1(w) an d al le ge th a t t h e r e gu la ti on ’s de fin it io n of th e te rm “ In di an ”

co nf li ct s wi th th e st at ut e.

-6

-The ba si s fo r su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on in th is cas e is th e sa m e as th at in San dy

Lak e I, an d th us th e se co nd el em en t of is su e pr ecl us io n is m et

. San dy Lak e ha s
ch arac te riz e d i t s cl ai m s as a “ di rect ch al le ng e to th e reg ul at io n,” bu t it ha s no t

id en ti fie d an y la w th at wou ld al lo w it to br in g su ch a ch al le ng e. To th e ex te nt co un ts 4

on e, fiv e, an d si x a r e co gn iz ab le

, th ey m us t be pu rs ue d un de r th e APA. The APA

li m it s no ns ta tu to ry jud ic ia l revi ew to “ fin al ag en cy act io n,” 5 U.S.C. § 70 4, and th e

on ly po ss ib le fin al ag en cy act io n he re is th e de ni al of a se cret ari al el ect io n.

Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t de ci de d th e pr eci se is su e in San dy Lak e I whe n it he ld

th at S a n d y La k e ha d “ fai le d to ex ha us t it s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s an d th is Co ur t

la ck s s u b je c t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er [San dy Lak e’s] cl ai m s th at rel at e to th e

req ue st ed IRA el ect io n.” San dy Lake I at *4

.

San dy Lak e al so di sp ut es th e fo ur th el em en t, arg ui ng th at th e di sm is sa l wit ho ut

pr ejud ic e in San dy Lak e I di d no t co ns ti tu te a fin al jud gm en t on th e m eri ts

. Alt ho ug h

di sm is sa l fo r la ck of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on do es no t ad jud ic at e th e m eri ts of th e
cl ai m s as se rte d, it do es ad jud ic at e th e co ur t’s juri sd ic ti on

. See Kul in sk i v. Med tro ni c

Bi o- Med ic us , I nc ., 1 12 F.3 d 36 8, 37 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (h ol di ng th at th e co m pl ai nt ’s

di sm is sa l wit ho ut pr ejud ic e fo r la ck o f s u b ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on wou ld pr ecl ud e pl ai nt iff fro m br in gi ng an ot he r cl ai m on th e sa m e juri sd ic ti on al ba si s, b u t d i d no t

pr ecl ud e “ th e sa m e cl ai m un de r a di ffer en t th eo ry an d juri sd ic ti on al ba si s” ); se e al so

C o u n t on e al le ge s a vi ol at io n of th e IRA. Alt ho ug h th e IRA pr ov id es t h a t 4

“ [a]cti on s to en fo rce th e pr ov is io ns of th is se ct io n m ay be br ou gh t in th e ap pr op ria te Fed eral di st ric t co ur t[,]” 25 U.S.C. § 4 76 (d )(2 ), th e IRA do es no t au th or iz e a faci al
ch al le ng e to th e reg ul at io n. Lik ewis e, San dy Lake h as no t ci te d a ny la w th at m ig ht
al lo w c ou nt si x— it s br each of tru st act io n— to st an d a lo ne

. See Gro s Ven tre Trib e

v. Uni te d St at es , 46 9 F.3 d 80 1, 80 9- 10 (9 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (g at he rin g cas es an d no ti ng th at th e go ve rn m en t’s ob li ga ti on of tru st in it s dea li ng s with In di an tri be s “ do es no t im po se a du ty on th e go ve rn m en t to ta ke act io n be y on d co mp l yi ng wit h ge ne ral ly

ap pl ic ab le st at ut es an d re gu la ti on s” ).

-7

-McC arn ey v. Fo rd Mo to r Co

., 65 7 F.2 d 23 0, 23 3 ( 8 t h C i r

. 19 81 ) (“ [A] de ci si on to

di sm is s ba se d on an y of th e do ct rin es un de r th e jus ti ci ab il it y he ad in g sh ou ld pr ecl ud e
rel it ig at io n of th e sa m e jus ti ci ab il i t y is su e bu t no t a se co nd su it on th e sa m e cl ai m

ev en if ari si ng ou t of th e id en ti cal se t of fact s.”)

. Acco rd in gl y , San dy Lak e m ay

reas se rt th e sa m e cl ai m s th at it al le ge d in San dy Lak e I, bu t on ly aft er it ex ha us ts it s
ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s. The di sm is sa l of th e co m pl ai nt th us co ns ti tu te s a “ va li d an d

fin al jud gm e n t” su ffi ci en t to ba r San dy Lak e fro m rel it ig at in g th e is su e of su bjec t

m at te r juri sd ic ti on

. See Ro bi ne tt e, 47 6 F

. 3 d a t 5 8 9 (“ ‘[F] in al it y ’ in th e co nt ex t of

is su e pr ecl us io n m ay m ean li tt le m or e th an th at th e li ti ga ti on of a pa rti cu la r is su e ha s

r each ed su ch a st ag e th at a co ur t se es no real ly go od reas on fo r pe rm it ti ng i t t o b e

li ti ga te d ag ai n.” ( q u o t i n g J oh n Mo rrel l & Co

. v. Loc al Uni on 30 4A of th e Uni te d

F o o d & C o mm erci al W or ke rs , 9 13 F.2 d 54 4, 56 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ))); 18 Ja m es W m.

Mo o r e et al

., Mo or e’s Fed eral Prac ti ce § 13 2.0 3[ 5][c] (3 d ed

. 20 13 ) (“ [A] se co nd

co m pl ai nt can no t co m

m an d a se co nd co ns id erat io n of th e sa m e juri sd ic ti on al

cl ai m .”).

Be ca use th e di st ric t co ur t pr ev io us ly ha d ad jud ic at ed th e is su e of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on an d San dy Lak e di d no t ap pe al f r o m t h a t de ci si on or ex ha us t it s
ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s, we do no t reac h th e m eri ts of San dy Lak e’s ap pe al

. W e al so
do no t pa ss jud gm en t on w h e t h e r t h e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on in San dy Lak e I was

co rrec t, fo r “ is su e pr ecl us io n pr ev en ts rel it ig at io n of wro ng de ci si on s jus t as m uc h as rig ht on es .” Gin te rs v. Fraz ie r, 61 4 F.3 d 82 2, 83 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 1 0 ) ( C o l l ot on , J.,

di ss en ti n g ) ( c i t in g Cl ark v. Cl ark

, 98 4 F.2 d 27 2, 27 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 )). W e affi rm ,

m od ifyin g th e di sm is sa l to be wit ho ut pr ejud ic e. W e de ny th e mo t i o n of th e Mi ll e

Lacs Ban d o f Ojib we fo r le av e to fil e an am ic us bri ef an d a pp en di x.

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

-8

-