Opinion ID: 169914
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Remand to the Secretary and the genesis of the instant case

Text: On remand, the Secretary reconsidered her decision and again concluded that the Wyandotte had used only § 105(b)(1) funds to purchase the Shriner Tract. In the published notice of this determination, the Secretary described the, history of the Wyandotte's investment of the 105(b)(1) funds and concluded, based primarily on the analysis of a public accounting firm, that the value of those funds, including appreciation, was $212,170 at the time of the Shriner Tract purchasemore than enough to cover the $180,000 purchase price. [3] 67 Fed.Reg. 10,926 (Mar. 11, 2002). The former Sac & Fox Nation plaintiffs requested reconsideration of this determination, which the Secretary granted. In June 2003, after receiving additional briefing from the parties, the Secretary issued a written opinion confirming her prior determination that the Wyandotte had purchased the Shriner Tract using only § 105(b)(1) funds, thereby triggering a nondiscretionary duty to take the Tract into trust. In particular, the Secretary expressly determined that the language of § 105(b)(1), although ambiguous, should be read so as to permit the use of interest or investment income accrued on the original $100,000 allocated in that section, thus allowing the Wyandotte to use up to $212,170 for purchase of the Shriner Tract. The Secretary also concluded that the purchase price actually paid for the Tract was $180,000not $325,000, as alleged by the Sac & Fox Nation plaintiffsand that the Wyandotte's remaining § 105(b)(1) funds were used to satisfy this purchase price. Plaintiffs tried to file their challenge in the original Sac & Fox Nation case, but were required by the district court to file under a new case number. Accordingly, in July 2003, Plaintiffsconsisting of the former Sac & Fox Nation plaintiffs plus an additional Indian Tribe, the Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansasfiled the instant complaint in federal court, specifically challenging the Secretary's March 2002 and June 2003 decisions. The complaint characterized the Secretary's determination that the Shriner Tract was purchased with § 105(b)(1) funds as arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence, and argued that the Secretary therefore erred by justifying her decision to take the Tract into trust as required by § 105(b)(1). As relief, Plaintiffs requested that the district court enter a declaratory judgment voiding the Secretary's decision and' order the Secretary to revoke the non-discretionary trust status of the Tract and rescind all other trust actions and applications and activities concerning the same. Plaintiffs also sought to supplement the administrative record with additional evidence they claimed undercut the Secretary's determination that the Wyandotte paid for the Tract with only § 105(b)(1) funds, including a $5,000 check written on an account of Nations Realty's parent company and allegedly used as earnest money for the purchase. The district court granted this request, once again remanding the case to the Secretary for the limited purpose of additional investigation or explanation of the supplemental evidence proffered by Plaintiffs and ordering the Secretary to tender her explanation to the court within 60 days. In December 2005, pursuant to the district court's order, the Secretary issued another opinion reiterating that only § 105(b)(1) funds and the investment income therefrom were used to purchase the Shriner Tract. The Secretary credited the Wyandotte's assertion that the $5,000 earnest money check was applied to closing costs and other costs over and above the purchase price of the Tract, and therefore concluded that materials presented by Plaintiffs in this second remand refute neither the [public accounting firm's] findings nor the reasoning behind the [Secretary's] 2003 conclusion that Wyandotte acted within the law in funding the Shriner Tract purchase. On May 9, 2006, the district court affirmed the Secretary's decision to take the Shriner Tract into trust. The court concluded that: (1) because § 105(b)(1) is ambiguous as to whether the Wyandotte could utilize the interest and investment income from that section's allocation of funds towards the purchase of trust property, the Secretary's interpretation of Section 105(b) is entitled to deference and should be affirmed under Chevron [U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)]; (2) the Secretary's determination that the 55,000 earnest money check was not applied to the purchase price of the Shriner Tract was supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record; (3) the Secretary's determination that only § 105(b)(1) funds were used for the purchase, based on a public accounting firm's analysis of the Wyandotte's accounts and a Department of Interior financial analyst's review of that analysis, also found sufficient support in the record; and (4) the Secretary's determination that the actual purchase price of the Shriner Tract was $180,000, not $325,000, was similarly supported by the record. Thus, the court denied Plaintiffs' claims for relief and upheld both the Secretary's legal interpretation of § 105(b)(1) and her substantive findings that only § 105(b)(1) funds were used to purchase the Shriner Tract. Plaintiffs now appeal the district court's order affirming the Secretary's decision.