Court: District Court, D. South Dakota; February 18, 2016; Federal District Court
Plaintiff Curtis Temple filed a verified complaint and a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against defendant Cleve Her Many Horses, the Pine Ridge Agency Superintendent. Following the initial filing, Mr. Temple submitted additional documentation in support of his motion, while Mr. Her Many Horses responded with an affidavit opposing the TRO. A hearing was conducted on August 27, 2015, but was adjourned due to ongoing settlement discussions. The hearing reconvened on August 31, 2015, after the parties failed to reach a settlement, and both sides provided post-hearing briefings and supplementary documents.
Mr. Her Many Horses later moved to dismiss Mr. Temple’s complaint, claiming lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which Mr. Temple opposed. Additionally, Mr. Her Many Horses sought permission to sell cattle, which Mr. Temple contested. A hearing on this matter, alongside allegations of trespass involving Mr. Temple's cattle, was held on February 18, 2016.
Mr. Temple, an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and a cattle rancher, alleges that actions by Mr. Her Many Horses and other tribal officials violated tribal law and resulted in his wrongful denial of access to grazing permits for specific range units. Testimony revealed that Donald “Duke” Buffington was awarded grazing permits for units 169 and P5012 for a five-year period starting November 1, 2012. Mr. Her Many Horses confirmed that while the permits took effect on November 1, 2012, they were not signed until March 25, 2013, due to administrative delays.
On April 27, 2015, Mr. Her Many Horses notified Mr. Temple via certified mail that his cattle were trespassing on range unit 169, providing a three-day window for removal or justification, and warned of potential penalties under federal regulations, including the possibility of impoundment and sale of the unauthorized livestock to protect Indian Lands.
On April 27, 2015, Mr. Her Many Horses notified Mr. Temple by certified mail of a compliance inspection on April 22, 2015, which revealed approximately 202 cows, 2 bulls, and 10 horses trespassing on range unit 501. The letter warned of potential impoundment due to this trespass. Following this, on May 4, 2015, the acting superintendent informed Mr. Temple of another inspection on the same date at range unit 169, where 12 cattle and 4 horses were also found in trespass. Mr. Temple was instructed to remove his livestock or demonstrate their legal right to graze; failing to do so made him liable for $416.20 in value and subject to impoundment under relevant regulations. A second letter on May 5, 2015, reported another inspection at range unit 501, revealing 161 cows, 1 bull, and 10 horses trespassing, with the value of this trespass now totaling $3,564.11.
On June 5, 2015, Mr. Bielecki, representing Mr. Temple, requested leniency regarding the trespass allegations, citing ongoing litigation in Tribal courts. In response, on July 2, 2015, Mr. Her Many Horses reiterated the Bureau of Indian Affairs' intention to proceed with impoundment if the livestock were not removed, asserting that Mr. Temple had no grazing rights on the affected range units. On August 12, 2015, Mr. Bielecki received an email indicating Mr. Temple had three days to remove his cattle before impoundment. Ultimately, the BIA impounded Mr. Temple’s cattle on August 19, 2015, with a veterinarian and brand inspector present during the process.
On August 21, 2015, Mr. Her Many Horses notified Mr. Temple via a hand-delivered letter that 121 of his cattle had been impounded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The letter, delivered to Holly Wilson, Mr. Temple's lay tribal advocate, informed him that the cattle were scheduled for sale at the Gordon Livestock Auction Market on September 1, 2015, unless redeemed beforehand. The BIA assessed Mr. Temple's financial liability at $274,402.46 due to the trespass and impoundment. The auction market later declined to sell the cattle because of ongoing litigation. On September 3, 2015, the cattle were relocated to Johnson Ranch in Nebraska, where they underwent testing for Trichomonas foetus, a contagious disease. One bull tested positive for Trichomoniasis, prompting the Nebraska Department of Agriculture to issue a five-point protocol for the cattle's release from quarantine, which included the immediate slaughter of the infected bull. The protocol also indicated that the remaining herd could not be legally returned to South Dakota due to the Trichomoniasis diagnosis without special permission. On October 14, 2015, discussions regarding the protocol took place among Mr. Temple, BIA officials, and legal representatives. Subsequently, on October 19, 2015, Mr. Temple reported that four bulls had been castrated at Johnson Ranch, and noted the death of one cow and the potential loss of others. Lastly, on October 26, 2015, it was confirmed that 114 cattle had been impounded on August 19, 2015.
A total of 121 animals were shipped to the Gordon Livestock Auction, including 10 new arrivals and three escapes, resulting in one death and one new calf born. Three bulls remained impounded, with five belonging to Tammy Steel and Trey Temple, who were notified of the sale but have not claimed their cattle. A memorandum of understanding was established on November 4, 2015, between Mr. Temple's representative Mr. Bielecki and Dr. Mendel Miller, a state veterinarian, regarding the management of Mr. Temple’s cattle. A protocol for cattle disposition was created on February 2, 2016, as at least one bull tested positive for Trich. The BIA seeks court approval to sell the highest-risk animals, including around 40 for slaughter. In unrelated matters, compliance inspections revealed Mr. Temple's livestock trespassing on range unit 501, with multiple observations made in 2015 and 2016. The Oglala Sioux Tribal Court initially issued an injunction against impounding Mr. Temple’s cattle, but later dismissed it with prejudice concerning federal actors, citing a lack of jurisdiction over the United States and its agencies.
On August 20, 2015, the Supreme Court of the Oglala Sioux Nation upheld the dismissal by the Tribal Court, confirming that tribal courts lack jurisdiction over the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which is part of the federal government. The Tribal Court's temporary injunction from May 14, 2015, continues to apply to all tribal entities and officials, excluding the BIA and Mr. Her Many Horses. Mr. Her Many Horses filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Temple’s complaint, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P.) 12(b)(1) and alternatively for failure to state a claim under 12(b)(6). This motion is based on arguments previously presented in response to a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), alleging that the court lacks the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case. The court recognizes Mr. Her Many Horses' motion as a factual attack on jurisdiction, which allows for consideration of evidence beyond the pleadings. In such cases, the trial court can weigh evidence to affirm its authority to adjudicate the matter, utilizing facts from TRO hearings and subsequent filings in its decision on the motion to dismiss.
Federal courts possess limited jurisdiction as defined by Article III of the Constitution and congressional statutes. The initial step in federal cases involves confirming jurisdiction, with the Eighth Circuit emphasizing the importance of meeting jurisdictional requirements. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof regarding subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Temple claims jurisdiction under several statutes, including 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but Mr. Her Many Horses contends that Mr. Temple cannot demonstrate a waiver of sovereign immunity under this jurisdiction.
The court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Temple's claims related to pre-impoundment actions concerning tribal grazing permits, as these claims are currently before Tribal Court. The allegations relate to the tribe's grazing permit allocation and challenge the Bureau of Indian Affairs' determination regarding cattle trespass, necessitating an interpretation of tribal law. The tribal exhaustion doctrine requires that tribal courts must first address such matters, promoting tribal self-governance. As Mr. Temple's claims involve tribal governance issues and are pending in Tribal Court, the court finds that the doctrine of tribal exhaustion applies, mandating resolution in the tribal forum before any federal action can proceed.
Mr. Temple's claims against the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) regarding penalty assessments and damage calculations are not ready for judicial review due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. For agency action to be deemed "final," it must conclude the agency's decision-making process and impose legal obligations or consequences. Errors in penalties or damage calculations should first be addressed by the BIA, the agency equipped to evaluate these issues effectively. Mr. Temple can still appeal BIA's monetary levies administratively after redeeming or selling his livestock.
Regarding the impoundment of Mr. Temple's cattle, the court considers sovereign immunity, which restricts lawsuits against the United States unless Congress consents. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) allows for judicial review of agency actions that do not seek monetary damages, thus permitting Mr. Temple to challenge unauthorized actions without violating sovereign immunity. The APA entitles individuals adversely affected by agency actions to seek judicial review, ensuring that claims against the United States or its officers can proceed if they do not demand money damages.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not inherently grant subject-matter jurisdiction for federal judicial review of agency actions. Judicial review under Section 702 of the APA is available when a plaintiff identifies specific agency action and demonstrates they have experienced a legal wrong or adverse effects as defined by a relevant statute. The Eighth Circuit ruled that without a “relevant statute,” there is no basis for a lawsuit under the APA. To be deemed “adversely affected or aggrieved,” a plaintiff must prove that their injury falls within the “zone of interests” the statute aims to protect. The Supreme Court interprets this “relevant statute” broadly and has recognized a trend toward expanding the class of individuals entitled to challenge administrative actions. The “zone of interest” test evaluates whether the complainant's interests align with those protected by the relevant statute, and it operates under a presumption favoring judicial review of agency actions. This test is not overly stringent and does not require evidence of congressional intent to benefit the plaintiff. The Secretary of the Department of the Interior has the authority to regulate livestock trespassing on Indian agricultural lands, as outlined in the American Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act (AIARMA), which mandates the establishment of civil penalties for trespass, the assignment of responsibilities for detection and investigation, and the procedures for enforcing penalties.
AIARMA's statutory purposes include fulfilling the United States' trust responsibility and managing Indian agricultural lands in alignment with tribal objectives. One of AIARMA's goals is to assist trust and restricted Indian landowners in leasing their agricultural lands while adhering to conservation practices and tribal management plans. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has a fiduciary duty to protect and manage Indian agricultural lands. The court interprets 25 U.S.C. 3713 as granting the Secretary the authority to regulate trespasses on these lands, allowing for judicial review. The Eighth Circuit's precedent confirms that similar statutes permit judicial scrutiny. Mr. Temple's claim regarding the alleged unconstitutional impoundment of his cattle aligns with the interests the statute aims to protect, and the regulations require that procedural safeguards be in place for landowners affected by impoundments. As an Oglala Sioux tribal member, Mr. Temple is entitled to these safeguards under the United States' fiduciary obligations. The BIA's authority is constrained by applicable regulations. The Oglala Sioux Tribe Supreme Court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction over federal matters, which affects Mr. Temple's case. Mr. Her Many Horses contends that sovereign immunity limits the court's jurisdiction over the legality of the cattle impoundment until after the animals are sold. However, past rulings indicate that the Secretary cannot use sovereign immunity against landowners contesting improper impoundments. Finally, Mr. Her Many Horses argues that the court lacks jurisdiction because the BIA has not issued a final decision in the matter.
Section 704 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) allows for judicial review of agency actions that are either renewable by statute or are final agency actions lacking other adequate court remedies. The Eighth Circuit has clarified that the waiver of sovereign immunity under Section 702 is not contingent on the procedures or standards of review outlined in the APA; rather, it applies to non-monetary relief claims against the government. This interpretation aligns with other circuits, establishing that plaintiffs seeking non-monetary relief do not need to fulfill Section 704’s requirements for a waiver of sovereign immunity.
Courts have affirmed that Section 702's waiver is applicable to non-monetary claims against federal agencies and is not restricted to the definitions of “agency action” or “final agency action” in the APA. Consequently, Mr. Temple’s case, which seeks the return of his impounded cattle rather than monetary damages, falls under this waiver. The court has determined it has subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Temple’s Fifth Amendment due process claims concerning the cattle's impoundment.
Moreover, Mr. Temple has sufficiently alleged that his cattle were taken without due process, justifying the federal court's ability to grant injunctive relief against an executive department. Mr. Her Many Horses contends that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) decision is not final until Mr. Temple retrieves his cattle. For agency action to be deemed "final," it must conclude the agency's decision-making process and result in determined rights or obligations.
Mr. Temple, a cattle rancher, faces severe economic consequences due to the impoundment of his cattle, which are now classified as part of a Trichomoniasis (Trich) infested herd. Approximately 40 cattle will be sold for immediate slaughter, while around 67 will be sold at a reduced price due to their Trich status. About 20 cattle will be sold without restrictions. The inability to determine the source of the Trich infection exacerbates the situation, as Mr. Temple risks losing not only the cattle but also potential future offspring. Even if future legal actions against the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) regarding damage calculations are successful, the immediate loss of cattle and the low compensation due to the infestation will already have had a detrimental impact on Mr. Temple’s livelihood.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is flexible and not strictly jurisdictional, allowing for judicial review of Mr. Temple's claims regarding the impoundment of his cattle as the BIA’s actions are considered final. Mr. Her Many Horses’ impoundment actions open the door for judicial review, and should it later be determined that the cattle were wrongfully impounded, the BIA's recourse would be limited due to the sales or slaughter of the cattle. Addressing Mr. Temple’s claims before the cattle are sold is deemed efficient to avoid further litigation. The court asserts subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review Mr. Temple's Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim, as no statutes preclude judicial review of BIA actions.
Mr. Her Many Horses’ motion to dismiss Mr. Temple’s Fifth Amendment due process claims and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim regarding the impoundment of livestock is denied. The court finds that the defendant has waived sovereign immunity, eliminating the need to assess whether his actions were ultra vires. The court first checked for sovereign immunity waiver before considering exceptions to that doctrine.
In evaluating Mr. Temple's claims related to livestock impoundment alongside his motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), the court notes that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring the movant to demonstrate justification. The district court has discretion in granting or denying such relief, and when assessing a TRO or preliminary injunction, the court must evaluate:
1. The threat of irreparable harm to the moving party.
2. The balance of this harm against any injury the injunction would cause other parties.
3. The likelihood of success on the merits.
4. The public interest.
No single factor is decisive; all must be weighed collectively to determine if the injunction should be granted. The likelihood of success on the merits is considered the most crucial factor, followed closely by the potential for irreparable harm to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted. A plaintiff must show a prima facie case indicating an invasion of rights that necessitates the preliminary injunction for protection.
The court will analyze each factor in detail, starting with the likelihood of success on the merits concerning Mr. Temple's request to enjoin the actions of Mr. Her Many Horses, which were conducted under the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ regulatory framework.
A party seeking to enjoin government action rooted in a presumed democratic process must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. This higher standard reflects the deference owed to policies developed through democratic means. In *Planned Parenthood v. Rounds*, the Eighth Circuit aligned with the Second Circuit’s reasoning in *Able v. United States*, emphasizing that when challenging government actions taken in the public interest, plaintiffs must show not only irreparable harm but also a strong likelihood of success. The Second Circuit ruled that a court's review of actions resulting from comprehensive democratic processes is limited, stressing that actions taken under a statutory or regulatory framework should not be lightly enjoined.
The administrative action in question involved regulations enacted under Congressional authority aimed at managing Indian agricultural lands for the benefit of Indigenous peoples. As such, the court emphasized that Mr. Temple must meet the stringent standard of demonstrating a likelihood of prevailing on his claims to successfully challenge the actions taken.
Regarding Mr. Temple's Fifth Amendment due process claims related to the impoundment of his cattle, due process is defined as flexible and situationally dependent. The court must weigh the significance of Mr. Temple's private interest against the potential for government error, considering the duration and finality of the deprivation he faced.
The excerpt addresses the balance between governmental interests and individual due process rights regarding property deprivation. It emphasizes that the Due Process Clause requires an individual to have a hearing opportunity before significant property deprivation, as established in Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill. However, pre-deprivation hearings are not universally mandated. In specific cases, statutory provisions for post-deprivation hearings or common-law remedies may suffice. Mr. Temple did not demonstrate a high likelihood of success in his claim that the BIA’s impoundment regulations infringe on his due process rights. While he has a significant interest in retaining his income-generating cattle, the regulations in place lower the risk of governmental error. The BIA regulations entail providing a detailed trespass notice, allowing the alleged trespasser to contest the notice, and informing them of potential impoundment and sale procedures. Historical cases, such as Jones and McVay, illustrate that courts have upheld similar impoundment regulations, affirming the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to manage trespass issues and support the validity of the regulatory framework in place.
The court determined that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) regulations concerning the impoundment of trespassing livestock did not violate the Fifth Amendment due process rights of Mr. Temple. The Ninth Circuit previously upheld similar Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulations, noting that impoundments had never been ruled invalid. Both BLM and BIA regulations lack a pre-impoundment hearing requirement. The BIA has a vested interest in protecting Indian agricultural land. Mr. Temple claimed his due process rights were violated due to insufficient notice. The due process standard requires notice that effectively informs affected parties of proceedings and allows them to respond. The BIA sent multiple certified letters to Mr. Temple regarding his trespassing cattle, specifying that he needed to either remove them or justify their presence on the land. Despite these notifications and opportunities to act, Mr. Temple failed to remove his cattle, which were ultimately impounded. The BIA provided adequate notice throughout the process, including an impoundment notification sent by certified mail and delivered to relevant parties, thereby supporting the court's conclusion that Mr. Temple was unlikely to prevail on his due process claim.
Mr. Temple has been in a protracted dispute with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and tribal officials regarding his grazing permits for range units 169 and 501. Testimony from Mr. Her Many Horses indicated that Mr. Temple's cattle have been in trespass since 2013, coinciding with the signing of grazing permits for those units. Mr. Temple, represented by Mr. Bielecki, filed a claim with the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) contesting the grazing permit allocations. In a letter dated June 5, Mr. Bielecki acknowledged multiple notices of trespass against Mr. Temple, attributing these issues to insufficient fencing on Mr. Temple’s allotted land. He requested patience from Mr. Her Many Horses while Mr. Temple worked to confine his livestock.
Mr. Temple's claim of surprise regarding the impoundment of his cattle was dismissed, as the BIA provided him with adequate constitutional notice. He failed to substantiate his due process claim concerning lack of notice. Additionally, Mr. Temple argued that the livestock impoundment was arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). For a claim to succeed under APA, the decision must not be arbitrary or capricious, and the court must find a rational basis for the agency's decision. The court noted that Mr. Temple did not demonstrate that the impoundment actions were unreasonable or unsupported by evidence, ultimately rejecting his APA claim.
Regarding the threat of irreparable harm, it is established that equitable relief is only appropriate if there is no adequate legal remedy. The district court should consider whether harm can be remedied through monetary damages, weighing against the issuance of an injunction.
Preliminary injunctive relief is unavailable if a plaintiff has an adequate legal remedy, such as damages. A failure to demonstrate irreparable harm is sufficient to deny a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction. To prove irreparable harm, a party must show the harm is certain, significant, and imminent, thus necessitating equitable relief. Historically, federal courts require evidence of irreparable harm and inadequacy of legal remedies for injunctive relief. If a movant cannot show irreparable harm, the denial of their request is warranted.
Courts have recognized irreparable harm in scenarios where a business and its goodwill are at risk. For instance, harm was affirmed when a distributor faced potential business closure. The right to continue a long-standing business cannot be quantified solely in monetary terms; the desire to operate a business is paramount, as a delayed monetary judgment is insufficient if the business ceases to exist.
In the case at hand, Mr. Temple's claim of irreparable harm due to the sale of his cattle was largely unsupported. While he asserted that selling his cattle would threaten his livelihood, he provided no evidence demonstrating how many cattle remained after impoundment or the impact of their sale on his ranching operations. Evidence indicated that many cattle remained on various range units, and Mr. Temple had potential monetary remedies available, including the ability to redeem his cattle and pursue claims against the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Thus, he had adequate legal remedies that negated the need for injunctive relief.
Mr. Temple did not prove an irreparable injury that would warrant injunctive relief, as he has other available legal remedies. The balance of harm analysis considers the impacts on both parties and the public. No single factor is decisive; rather, the court assesses the relative injuries to all involved. If the potential irreparable harm to Mr. Temple is outweighed by the likely harm to other parties from granting the injunction, he faces a significant burden to show he is likely to succeed on the merits. Conversely, if he presents a substantial question and the equities favor him, less proof of success on the merits is required.
In this case, the balance of harms favors denying Mr. Temple's request for an injunction. If denied, Mr. Temple would suffer financial injury due to the sale of his cattle, but he could still seek damages from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). If granted, the injunction could disrupt ongoing Tribal Court matters and hinder the BIA's enforcement of valid grazing permits, impacting the BIA’s fiduciary responsibilities to about 392 individuals. Evidence indicated that Mr. Temple had overstocked certain range units without permits, reducing their carrying capacities and potentially allowing the spread of disease among neighboring cattle herds. Overall, the analysis concluded that the balance of harms supports denying Mr. Temple's request for injunctive relief.
The evaluation of Mr. Temple's request for injunctive relief involves a flexible consideration of four factors as outlined in Dataphase. The court emphasizes the need to assess the injury to other parties and the public interest, particularly the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) duty to protect Indian agricultural lands. Mr. Temple has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his case, has an alternative legal remedy available, and must first address the underlying issues in Tribal Court. Consequently, all Dataphase factors support the denial of his request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), which the court denies.
Following the denial of the TRO, the defendant is permitted to proceed with the standard processing of Mr. Temple's cattle in compliance with BIA regulations. The court does not make a ruling on the legality of the defendant's proposed sale plan, as this matter is not currently before the court, but reminds the defendant of the requirement to conduct a public sale of the impounded livestock to the highest bidder according to 25 CFR 166.811.
Mr. Her Many Horses' motion to sell the cattle is deemed moot. The court partially grants and partially denies Mr. Her Many Horses' Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. Mr. Temple's Fifth Amendment due process claims and claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) related to the cattle's impoundment are preserved, while his claims concerning pre-impoundment conduct and the assessment of penalties and damages are dismissed without prejudice.
Mr. Temple's motion for a TRO and his motion to extend are both denied as moot. Additionally, the court notes that Mr. Temple's allegations overlap with ongoing litigation in Tribal Court, and clarifies terminology regarding grazing permits and the status of cattle trespass. The court acknowledges Mr. Temple’s assertion of a priority lien from the Bank of the West on his cattle, which could impact the sale proceeds and payment of BIA fines.
A facial attack on a complaint requires the court to assess whether the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, taking the complaint's allegations as true. The court clarifies that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not provide an implied grant of subject-matter jurisdiction for federal judicial review of agency actions, as determined by the Supreme Court. Following the enactment of the AIARMA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) established regulations related to trespass on Indian agricultural lands. Disputes arose regarding the health of Mr. Temple's cattle, with conflicting claims about when they contracted Trich. Counsel for Mr. Temple contends that the BIA improperly exported the cattle without adhering to Nebraska's import requirements. Due to the Trich infestation, approximately 107 of the 127 cattle will be sold at significantly reduced prices. The court acknowledges that Mr. Her Many Horses stipulated to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, negating the need to evaluate other jurisdictional claims. The court cites prior rulings on the procedural requirements for preliminary injunctions and due process, affirming that the BLM was not mandated to provide a pre-deprivation hearing. It notes that relevant regulations have been reorganized, and emphasizes that previous cases did not dismiss complaints regarding agency livestock impoundments for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Temple failed to establish a likelihood of success on appeal regarding the BIA's trespass determination, which is exempt from appeal under 25 CFR § 166.803(c). While not entitled to an appeal notice regarding impoundment, Mr. Temple can pursue administrative avenues and legal remedies concerning costs and penalties related to livestock redemption. He voluntarily dismissed an action to pursue claims in Tribal Court, which involve issues pertaining to the Oglala Sioux Tribe's constitution and ordinances.
