Doucette claims the BIA acted improperly (THEM? who would believe that? oh yea, THOUSANDS of us) BIA says, what's a little quid pro quo amongst friends
The estimable Turtle Talk Blog has the briefs of the case we wrote about in 2017
US says: Even if the Tribe’s attorney was encouraging the Department to
act more quickly in order to benefit third parties in another lawsuit that
fact does not make his communications with the Department improper
or otherwise undermine the propriety of the Department’s decision to
recognize the Council
Doucette says: THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY NOT REQUIRING INTERIOR TO PRODUCE THE WHOLE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD. “The whole administrative record,” as per 5 U.S.C. § 706, “is not necessarily those documents that the agency has compiled and submitted as the administrative record. The whole administrative record . . . consists of all documents and materials directly or indirectly considered by agency decision-makers and includes evidence contrary to the agency’s position.” Thompson v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1989) (emphasis in original; citations omitted); see also Bar MK Ranches v. Yuetter, 994 F.2d 735, 739 (10th Cir.1993) (“The complete administrative record consists of all documents and materials directly or indirectly considered by the agency.”). The critical inquiry is what was before the decisionmaker “at the time of the decision.”9 Thompson, 885 F.2d at 555. Lobbyist Porter’s dogged requests that Interior aid his clients in Rabang I by March 9, 2018, were directly or indirectly before PDAS Tahsuda at the time of his decision on that very same day. ER 0096-0108, 0159.