Opinion ID: 172239
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Similarly-Situated Tribes

Text: The UKB also contends that HUD's action is arbitrary and capricious because it treats similarly-situated tribes differently. To support this argument, the UKB contends: In the same year that HUD denied IHBG funding to the [UKB] ..., HUD granted funding to the Pamunkey Tribe, the Lumbee Tribe, the Poospatuck Indians and the Waccamaw Siouan State Tribe. (Aplt.App['x][ ]229). These state tribal entities lack the legal capacity to exercise jurisdiction over land and are not qualified to have lands held in trust by the federal government. Aplt. Br. at 18-19. The UKB also highlights HUD's acknowledgment of the possibility of similar tribes  since there may be other landless tribes, we need to understand the implications of any decision that is made in this case on other tribes  and contends that because the record does not otherwise consider the implications of its decision on other tribes, HUD ignored this aspect of the analysis. Id. at 19 (quoting Aplt. App'x at 72). The record citation provided by the UKB to support the existence of similarly-situated tribes refers only to a letter through counsel from the UKB to HUD disputing UKB's jurisdiction over a formula area. Assuming that this is appropriate authority, I would read the letter to state that HUD provided IHBG need funding to the referenced tribes because they met the formula area definition under 24 C.F.R. § 1000.302 (viii). Aplt. App'x at 229. To the extent the UKB did not meet the formula area definition, the referenced tribes are not similarly situated. I also would reject the UKB's contention that HUD failed to consider the impact on other similar tribes. As the UKB noted, HUD acknowledged the potential impact on other similar tribes as a consideration. HUD later indicated that the UKB was not the only tribe affected by the Cherokee Nation's contention that only it could exercise jurisdiction over the Cherokee Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area. Id. at 172. HUD identified the similarly-affected tribes as the Shawnee Tribe ... and Delaware Tribe of Indians. Id. According to HUD, the Delaware Tribe lost its federal recognition and was no longer eligible for IHBG funding, and the Shawnee Tribe did not appeal the decision. Id. at 172-73. In its letter to HUD, the UKB acknowledged that [t]his situation is unique to these two tribes [the UKB and the Cherokee Nation] because they both are successors in interest to the former Cherokee Nation. Id. at 234. Based upon these considerations, which HUD identified as a part of its decision-making process, I cannot conclude that HUD ignored or disregarded the implications of its UKB decision on other tribes.