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

Heading: The Sac & Fox Nation case

Text: On July 12, 1996, exactly thirty days after the Secretary published notice of her decision, the Governor of Kansas and three Indian tribesthe Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri, the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, and the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indiansfiled suit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas challenging the Secretary's decision to take the Shriner Tract into trust for the Wyandotte. The suit claimed that § 105(b)(1) created no mandatory duty for the Secretary to place the Shriner Tract in trust, and that the Secretary had failed to determine whether the Wyandotte had actually, used § 105(b)(1) funds to purchase the Tract in any case. [2] Sac & Fox Nation, 240 F.3d at 1260. In order to prevent the Secretary from taking the Shriner Tract into trust prior to resolution of these claims, the Sac & Fox Nation plaintiffs requested, and the district court granted, a temporary restraining order (TRO) forbidding the Secretary from consummating the trust acquisition. Id. at 1257. The Wyandotte, however, immediately filed an interlocutory appeal with this court, arguing that the real estate contract for the purchase of the Shriner Tract was due to expire and, if the TRO was not dissolved, the opportunity for the Tract to be placed in trust would be lost. Id. In order to preserve the status quo, we granted the Wyandotte's request and dissolved the TRO subject to the conditions which constitute the law of this case, that the respective rights of the parties to obtain judicial review of all issues which have been raised in the complaint below shall be preserved, including standing of all parties, jurisdiction, compliance by the Secretary with all requirements of law, and the ultimate question of whether gaming shall be permitted on the subject land. Id. (quotations omitted). With the TRO dissolved, the Wyandotte proceeded with their purchase of the Tract on July 16, 1996, and the Secretary took the Tract into trust for the benefit of the tribe. Id. The district court denied the plaintiffs' subsequent motions challenging the trust acquisition, and eventually dismissed the case on procedural grounds. Id. On appeal from this judgment, we reversed the district court's procedural dismissal. Reaching the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, we agreed with the Secretary that § 105(b)(1) created a nondiscretionary. duty to take any land purchased with the funds designated in that section into trust for the Wyandotte. Id. at 1262. However, we found that the Secretary's factual determination that the Wyandotte used only § 105(b)(1) funds for the Shriner Tract purchase lacked sufficient record support Id. at 1263-64. We therefore remanded the case to the district court, with instructions to remand to the Secretary for further consideration of the question of whether [§ 105(b)(1) funds were used for the acquisition of the Shriner Tract. Id. at 1268. The district court issued a judgment remanding the case to the Secretary on August 23, 2001. Importantly, the district court clarified in a later order that the Sac & Fox Nation case was officially closed after the remand, thus requiring any challenges to the Secretary's decisions on remand to be brought in a new and separate action: Consistent with the mandate of the Tenth Circuit, this court entered a final judgment in these [ Sac & Fox Nation ] cases on August 23, 2001. As directed by the Tenth Circuit, the judgment in part remanded these cases to the Secretary of the Interior for further consideration of the question of whether Pub.L. 98-602 funds were used for the acquisition of a tract of land called the Shriner Tract. The court did not maintain jurisdiction over these cases after the judgment and order of remand. The court believes any appeal of the Secretary's determination following the remand must be considered a new and separate action, which the instant motion indicates has been filed. Therefore, the court shall deny plaintiffs' motion [to supplement the record and arrange a scheduling conference] because the above-captioned cases are closed, and the challenge plaintiffs seek to make should be made in a new and separate action.