`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`
`
`
`Minnesota Department
`Resources et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`The White Earth Band of Ojibwe and
`Hon. David A. DeGroat, in his official
`capacity as judge of the White Earth Band
`of Ojibwe Tribal Court,
`
`
`
`
`
`of Natural
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 21-cv-1869 (WMW/LIB)
`
`
`
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
`INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING
`COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin
`
`Defendants from proceeding in the matter Manoomin v. Minnesota Department of Natural
`
`Resources, Case No. GC21-0428 (White Earth Band of Ojibwe Tribal Ct.). (Dkt. 5.) For
`
`the reasons addressed below, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary
`
`injunction and dismisses Plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiffs are the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and its
`
`officials. Defendants are the White Earth Band of Ojibwe (Band) and Hon. David A.
`
`DeGroat, Chief Judge of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe Tribal Court (Tribal Court).
`
`
`
`CASE 0:21-cv-01869-WMW-LIB Doc. 20 Filed 09/03/21 Page 2 of 6
`
`On August 5, 2021, the Band and several other parties1 (collectively Band Parties)
`
`filed suit against the DNR and its officials in the Tribal Court. In the Tribal Court matter,
`
`the Band Parties allege that, by granting water-use permits to a company in conjunction
`
`with that company’s operation of an oil pipeline in northern Minnesota, the DNR violated
`
`the Band Parties’ rights. In particular, the Band Parties allege that the DNR’s conduct
`
`violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
`
`Constitution, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) and treaties between
`
`the United States of America and the Chippewa and other tribes, among other claims. In
`
`their lawsuit in the Tribal Court, the Band Parties seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
`
`The DNR moved to dismiss the Band Parties’ tribal lawsuit, arguing that the Tribal
`
`Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction due to the non-member status of the DNR and its
`
`officers, the DNR’s sovereign immunity and the fact that the contested actions did not take
`
`place on reservation land. Chief Judge DeGroat of the Tribal Court denied the DNR’s
`
`motion to dismiss, holding that the DNR’s arguments regarding sovereign immunity and
`
`subject-matter jurisdiction “must give way” to the Band’s “vital” interests.
`
`On August 19, 2021, Plaintiffs commenced this action, seeking declaratory and
`
`injunctive relief against the Band and Chief Judge DeGroat. Plaintiffs argue that the Tribal
`
`Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute currently pending in the Tribal
`
`Court. Plaintiffs also contend that sovereign immunity protects them from the Band Parties’
`
`
`1
`The plaintiffs in the tribal court proceeding are Manoomin (wild rice), the Band,
`members of the Band’s tribal council, and other individuals including members of the
`Band, members of other tribes and individuals who are not members of any tribe.
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE 0:21-cv-01869-WMW-LIB Doc. 20 Filed 09/03/21 Page 3 of 6
`
`lawsuit. Plaintiffs request that this Court preliminarily enjoin the Band and Chief Judge
`
`DeGroat from proceeding with the matter currently pending in the Tribal Court.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that is never awarded as of
`
`right. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). The purpose of a
`
`preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo. Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470,
`
`471 (8th Cir. 1994). The burden rests with the moving party to establish that injunctive
`
`relief should be granted. Watkins Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003). When
`
`determining whether preliminary injunctive relief is warranted, the district court considers
`
`four factors: (1) the movant’s likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the threat of
`
`irreparable harm to the movant, (3) the state of balance between the harm to the movant
`
`and the injury that granting an injunction will inflict on other parties to the litigation, and
`
`(4) the public interest. Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir.
`
`1981).
`
`The first and most important Dataphase factor is the movant’s likelihood of success
`
`on the merits. Craig v. Simon, 980 F.3d 614, 617 (8th Cir. 2020) (stating that “[t]he
`
`likelihood of success on the merits is the most important of the Dataphase factors”)
`
`(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). A party seeking a preliminary injunction
`
`need not demonstrate actual success on the merits, but that party must demonstrate a
`
`likelihood of success. Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12
`
`(1987). When a court concludes that a plaintiff has “failed to establish a substantial
`
`likelihood of success on the merits, [the court] will not address the other prerequisites of
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE 0:21-cv-01869-WMW-LIB Doc. 20 Filed 09/03/21 Page 4 of 6
`
`preliminary injunctive relief.” Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1342 (11th Cir.
`
`1994).
`
` “Tribal sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional threshold matter.” Fort Yates Pub.
`
`Sch. Dist. No. 4 v. Murphy ex rel. C.M.B., 786 F.3d 662, 670 (8th Cir. 2015) (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted). “As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit
`
`only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” Kiowa
`
`Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754 (1998). “A tribe’s sovereign
`
`immunity may extend to tribal agencies, including the Tribal Court.” Fort Yates, 786 F.3d
`
`at 670–71 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); accord Hagen v. Sisseto-
`
`Wahpeton Cmty. Coll., 205 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2000) (observing that it is
`
`“undisputed that a tribe’s sovereign immunity may extend to tribal agencies”). “The
`
`Supreme Court has made clear . . . that a tribe’s sovereign immunity bars suits against the
`
`tribe for injunctive and declaratory relief.” Fort Yates, 786 F.3d at 671 (citing Mich. v. Bay
`
`Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782 (2014) and Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49
`
`(1978)).
`
`Plaintiffs commenced this action against the Band and Chief Judge DeGroat in his
`
`official capacity.2 These parties, a tribe and a tribal court, however, are both protected
`
`
`2
`Although Plaintiffs have not sued the Tribal Court, they have sued Chief Judge
`DeGroat in his official capacity. Counsel for Plaintiffs asserted at the September 1, 2021
`hearing that they sued Chief Judge DeGroat exclusively in his official capacity because the
`Chief Judge of the Tribal Court is the appropriate defendant for the purposes of an official-
`capacity suit. As such, Plaintiffs effectively seek declaratory and injunctive relief against
`the Band and the Tribal Court.
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE 0:21-cv-01869-WMW-LIB Doc. 20 Filed 09/03/21 Page 5 of 6
`
`from suit by tribal sovereign immunity.3 Id. at 670–71. And Plaintiffs do not allege that
`
`Defendants have waived their sovereign immunity or that Congress has authorized this
`
`lawsuit. Because both Defendants are immune from suit and Plaintiffs have not identified
`
`an applicable waiver or abrogation of tribal sovereign immunity, this Court lacks the
`
`authority to enjoin Defendants. Plaintiffs, therefore, have failed to demonstrate a
`
`likelihood of success on the merits, and the Court need not analyze the remaining
`
`Dataphase factors.
`
`In summary, Plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief because this Court lacks
`
`the authority to enjoin the Defendants in this case. Moreover, in light of Defendants’ tribal
`
`sovereign immunity, the Court also concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over
`
`this case and must dismiss the complaint without prejudice.4 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)
`
`(“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must
`
`dismiss the action.”).
`
`ORDER
`
`Based on the foregoing analysis and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT
`
`IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, (Dkt. 5), is DENIED.
`
`
`3
`“Of course, the Tribe’s sovereign immunity does not necessarily protect Tribal
`officials from suit,” id. at 671 n.8, nor does it protect other individuals. But Plaintiffs have
`not sued any person in his or her individual capacity.
`
` 4
`
`Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over Defendants based on their sovereign
`
`immunity, the Court declines to address whether the Tribal Court has jurisdiction over
`Plaintiffs pursuant to Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), as such an opinion
`would be an improper advisory opinion, see U.S. Const. art. III, § 2.
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE 0:21-cv-01869-WMW-LIB Doc. 20 Filed 09/03/21 Page 6 of 6
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs’ complaint, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
`
`for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
`
`LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
`
`
`Dated: September 3, 2021
`
`
`
`s/Wilhelmina M. Wright
`Wilhelmina M. Wright
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`