Fredericks v. U.S. Dep't of Interior
| Decision Date | 01 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-cv-2458 (KBJ),20-cv-2458 (KBJ) |
| Parties | SUSAN FREDERICKS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
John Fredericks, Jr., an enrolled member of the Three Affiliated Tribes of North Dakota, passed away in December of 2006. (Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 14, 18.) From that point until now, five of John's children (collectively, "Plaintiffs") have been engaged in litigation with the Department of the Interior ("DOI") regarding the disposition and use of 3,477 acres of land in the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota that the United States had been holding in trust for their father, pursuant to an 1886 agreement between the United States and the Three Affiliated Tribes. As relevant here, in 2008, the Acting Superintendent of the Fort Berthold Agency executed a lease that permits oil and gas development on a parcel of those trust lands. (See id. ¶ 28.) Plaintiffs subsequently asked the DOI to declare that lease invalid, and to distribute the existing lease proceeds to Plaintiffs rather than to Judy Fredericks, John's surviving spouse. (See id. ¶ 35.) The DOI evaluated this request, and determined that the lease was validly executed under the Fort Berthold Mineral Leasing Act ("FBMLA"), Pub. L. No. 105-188, 112 Stat. 620 (1998) (), and that, given the terms of the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004 ("AIPRA"), Pub. L. No. 108-374, 118 Stat. 1773 (), Judy is entitled to all of the income generated from the lease for the remainder of her lifetime. (See Compl. ¶¶ 43-49.) Plaintiffs then filed the instant lawsuit, claiming that the DOI's conclusions violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., and seeking judicial review. (See Compl. ¶ 3.)
Before this Court at present is a motion for a preliminary injunction that Plaintiffs have filed; they seek an interim order that enjoins the DOI from distributing any proceeds of the oil lease to Judy until the Court resolves this legal dispute. (See Pls.' Mot. for Entry of Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 4, at 1.)1 Plaintiffs contend that (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenges to the DOI's decision (see Pls.' Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. ( ), ECF No. 4-1, at 10); (2) distribution of the lease proceeds would cause them irreparable harm (see id. at 20); and (3) the balance of equities and the public interest favor issuance of preliminary injunctive relief (see id. at 23). The DOI disputes each of these contentions (see Defs.' Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. for Prelim. Inj. ( ), ECF No. 11, at 20), and for the reasons explained below, this Court concludes that, at least based on the parties' arguments for and against preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have not proven that their alleged harms are irreparable, nor have Plaintiffs shown thatthe balance of the equities or the public's interest support the requested preliminary relief.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction will be DENIED. A separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will follow.
In the late 1800s, Congress allotted parcels of land within the Fort Berthold Reservation to individual members of the Three Affiliated Tribes. See Agreement at Fort Berthold art. III (Dec. 14, 1886), ch. 543, § 23, 26 Stat. 1032, 1033 (1891); see also Fort Berthold Rsrv. v. United States, 390 F.2d 686, 689 (Ct. Cl. 1968). Notably, these allotments were not grants of title to the land in fee simple; rather, the federal government held legal title to the lands in trust, and pledged to manage them for the benefit of the Indian allottees, who have a beneficial interest in the lands. See Agreement at Fort Berthold art. IV; cf. Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081, 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2001). "As a result of [the] allotment, individual Indians became beneficiaries of the trust lands, but lost the right to sell, lease, or burden the property without the federal government's approval." Cobell, 240 F.3d at 1088. Thus, the federal government "probates estates related to Indian trust lands[,]" and it "receives and distributes income from the lease of allotted lands" to the individual beneficiaries of those lands. Id.
Consistent with the federal government's obligation to manage Indian lands in this way, Congress has enacted a number of statutes governing leasing on Indian lands and the probate of Indian estates, and the DOI is charged with administering thosestatutes. See United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162, 166 (2011). The instant matter implicates two of these statutes, both of which are described briefly below.
Congress enacted the FBMLA in 1998 "to amend the Mineral Leasing Act of 1909," which is codified at 25 U.S.C. § 396.2 The FBMLA was designed "to facilitate the leasing of mineral rights within the exterior boundaries of the reservation of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation[,]" S. Rep. No. 105-205, at 1 (1998), which had otherwise encountered significant obstacles, including "too many mineral interests tied up in probate[,]" id. at 3. For example, the Mineral Leasing Act had been interpreted to require that "all persons who have an undivided interest in any particular parcel must consent to its lease," but, due to "fractionated heirship[,]" there could be "hundreds of owners of an undivided interest in a parcel of land." Id. at 3-4. The FBMLA sought to address this and other problems by "permit[ting] mineral leasing of Indian land located within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in any case in which there is consent from a majority interest in the parcel of land under consideration for lease." Pub. L. No. 105-188, 112 Stat. at 620.
The FBMLA begins by defining "Indian land" as "an undivided interest in a single parcel of land" that "is located within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota" and "is held in trust or restricted status by the United States." FBMLA § 1(a)(1)(A).3 It also defines "individually owned Indian land" as "Indian land that is owned by 1 or more individuals." Id. § 1(a)(1)(B).
The statute goes on to describe the circumstances in which the Secretary of the Interior may "approve any mineral lease or agreement that affects individually owned Indian land." Id. § 1(a)(2)(A). In this regard, the statute sets out two prerequisites for the Secretary's approval of a lease: (1) "the owners of a majority of the undivided interest in the Indian land that is the subject of the mineral lease or agreement" must "consent to the lease or agreement[,]" and (2) the Secretary must "determine[] that approving the lease or agreement is in the best interest of the Indian owners of the Indian land." Id. And to determine "the best interest of the Indian mineral owner[,]" the regulations governing leasing of Indian lands require the Secretary to consider "any relevant factor, including, but not limited to: economic considerations, such as date of lease expiration; probable financial effect on the Indian mineral owner; leasability of land concerned; need for change in the terms of the existing lease; marketability; and potential environmental, social, and cultural effects." 25 C.F.R. § 212.3; see also S. Rep. No. 105-205, at 6 ().
Notably, per the text of the FBMLA, the effect of the Secretary's approval is that "the lease or agreement shall be binding, to the same extent as if all of the Indian owners of the Indian land involved had consented to the lease or agreement, upon . . . all owners of the undivided interest in the Indian land subject to the lease or agreement" and "all other parties to the lease or agreement." FBMLA § 1(a)(2)(B). The statute also provides that "[t]he proceeds derived from a lease or agreement that is approved by the Secretary . . . shall be distributed to all owners of the Indian land that is subject to the lease or agreement in accordance with the interest owned by each such owner." Id. § 1(a)(2)(C). The FBMLA further authorizes the Secretary to execute—not merely approve—"a mineral lease or agreement that affects individually owned Indian land on behalf of an Indian owner" in certain circumstances. Id. § 1(a)(3). As relevant here, the Secretary may execute such a lease if the "owner is deceased and the heirs to, or devisees of, the interest of the deceased owner have not been determined." Id. § 1(a)(3)(A).
The AIPRA was enacted "to address the ever-worsening administrative and economic problems associated with the phenomenon of fractionated ownership of Indian lands." S. Rep. No. 108-264, at 1 (2004). Congress found, inter alia, that "the reliance of the Federal Government on the State law of intestate succession with respect to the descent of allotments has resulted in numerous problems affecting Indian tribes," including "the increasingly fractionated ownership of trust and restricted lands as that land is inherited by successive generations of owners as tenants in common." Pub. L. No. 108-374, § 2(3)(A), 118 Stat. at 1773. Accordingly, the AIPRA amended the Indian Land Consolidation Act, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., to create "a new,uniform federal probate code applicable to" Indian lands, as well as "mechanisms for the Department of the Interior, tribes[,] and individual Indians to consolidate[] highly fractionated Indian lands." H.R. Rep. No. 108-656, at 1 (2004).
The provisions of the AIPRA that are relevant here are those governing "nontestamentary disposition"—i.e., the descent of...
To continue reading
Request your trial