See Documents here: Aguayo v. Jewell
|Sally Jewell doesn't swear to protect ALL Natives|
IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER9
The Court sympathizes with the hardships that Plaintiffs face as a result of their
disenrollment from the Pala Band. The significance of terminating membership from
one’s tribe is not lost. However, the Court’s role in this situation is “not to substitute
its judgment for that of the agency,” but rather to examine whether there is a “rational
connection between the facts found and the choice made” by the agency. Nw. Envtl.
Def. Ctr. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 477 F.3d 668, 687 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting State
Farm, 463 U.S. at 43) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under the standard
prescribed by 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), which is highly deferential to the agency, Plaintiffs
fail to meet their burden to demonstrate that the Assistant Secretary’s decision isin any
way “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse or discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
law.” See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); San Luis & Delta-Mendota, 747 F.3d at 601.
In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment, and GRANTS Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, this Court affirms the Assistant Secretary’s June 2013 decision
concluding that “the Regional Director acted based on a proper interpretation of authority under tribal law to review the enrollment appeals[,]” and that “the Department
has no authority under Federal or tribal law to decide enrollment issues for the Band.”
(See AR 23.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Read MORE about PALA DISENROLLMENTS:
Pala disenrolled 162 members