UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
THE SHAWNEE TRIBE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-CV-290 ) STEVEN MNUCHIN, et al., ) Defendants. )
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Shawnee Tribe’s motion for a preliminary
injunction (Doc. 3) and the defendants’ motion for transfer of venue (Doc. 20).
I. Background
In Title V of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act),
Congress allocated $8 billion for “Tribal governments” to help defray the cost of dealing with the
COVID-19 pandemic. Congress called for the money to be distributed based on each tribe’s
“increased expenditures” but left it up to the Secretary of the Treasury to determine how this would
be calculated:
[T]he the amount paid under this section for fiscal year 2020 to a Tribal government shall be the amount the Secretary shall determine, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and Indian Tribes, that is based on increased expenditures of each such Tribal government (or a tribally-owned entity of such Tribal government) relative to aggregate expenditures in fiscal year 2019 by the Tribal government (or tribally-owned entity) and determined in such manner as the Secretary determines appropriate to ensure that all amounts available under subsection (a)(2)(B) for fiscal year 2020 are distributed to Tribal governments.
42 U.S.C. § 801. Congress gave the Secretary until April 26, 2020—30 days from the passage of
the Act—to distribute the money.1
1 The Act set a deadline of “not later than 30 days after March 27, 2020” i.e., by April 26, 2020. § 801(b)(1). After soliciting input from tribes, the Treasury Department announced its distribution
methodology on May 5, 2020.2 Effective immediately, the Department said, it would begin
releasing an initial tranche of $4.8 billion, 60 percent of the total available. Because actual
expenses could not be predicted quickly and could favor tribes that run businesses, the first tranche
was being distributed based on each tribe’s population as estimated by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development for its Indian Housing Block Grant program.3 A subsequent round of
funding would distribute the remaining 40 percent based on employment data collected from the
tribes, the Treasury Department said.
The Tribe contends that the Secretary’s method for distributing the initial tranche of funds
was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the
Department relied on data it knew to be faulty when calculating each tribe’s pro rata share, ignoring
other available data sets that were more accurate. Tribe claims that, because it does not receive
IHBG funds, the HUD data shows it to have a population of zero rather than 3,021, its actual
enrollment. As a result of the alleged error, the Tribe received the minimum payment of $100,000
rather than its rightful pro-rata share, which the Tribe estimates to be not less than $12 million.
The Tribe seeks an order directing the Secretary to withhold from the Department’s second round
of disbursements (roughly $3.2 billion), an amount of money equal to that the Tribe would have
received had the Department relied on more accurate data.
This suit comes on the heels of three others, filed in the District Court for the District of
Columbia, related to the Treasury Department’s handling of the Title V funds. In Confederated
2 U.S Dep’t. of the Treasury, Coronavirus Relief Fund Allocations to Tribal Governments (May 5, 2020), http://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Coronavirus-Relief-Fund-Tribal- Allocation-Methodology.pdf. 3 Id. 2 Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Mnuchin, a group of tribes challenged Treasury’s plan to
include Alaska Native regional and village corporations (“ANCs”) in its distribution. ANCs, the
tribes argued, are not “Tribal governments” under the CARES Act. See Confederated Tribes of the
Chehalis Reservation v. Mnuchin, No. 20-CV-1002 (APM), 2020 WL 3489479 (D.D.C. June 26,
2020), appeal docketed, No. 20-5205 (D.C. Cir. July 14, 2020). Ultimately, the court held that
ANCs are “Tribal governments” for the purposes of the CARES Act but directed Treasury to
withhold the money earmarked for them until the matter is resolved on appeal. See Confederated
Tribes, No. 20-CV-1002, ECF No. 107.
In Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Mnuchin, a tribe sought to enjoin the Treasury
Department from disbursing the second tranche of CARES Act funds, arguing that the
Department’s reliance on faulty population data caused it to short the tribe by more than $7 million.
Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Mnuchin, No. 20-CV-1491 (APM), 2020 WL 3402298
(D.D.C. June 11, 2020). The court denied the requested relief, citing the tribe’s doubtful prospects
for success on the merits, its undue delay in bringing the suit, and harm to the public interest caused
by further delaying disbursement of the remaining funds. Id. at *2–3.
Finally, in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Mnuchin, a group of tribes sought
an injunction ordering the Treasury Department, which had blown by Congress’s disbursement
deadline, to release the funds under its control. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v.
Mnuchin, No. 20-CV-1136 (APM), 2020 WL 3250701 (D.D.C. June 15, 2020). Treasury had
sought to set aside some $679 million to resolve claims by tribes that had lost out due the
Department’s reliance on HUD’s population estimates, but the court, citing its decision in Prairie
Band, ordered the Department to disburse all Title V funds except those on hold due to the
litigation in Confederated Tribes. See Agua Caliente, 2020 WL 3250701, at *1 & n.1, *4.
3 After the court’s order in Agua Caliente, the government began distributing the second
tranche of Title V funds. As of June 25, 2020, all that remained was (1) $1.4 million that had been
held up due to payment processing issues, and (2) the money earmarked for the ANCs, which
remains subject to the D.C. court’s injunction in Confederated Tribes. See Agua Caliente, No. 20-
CV-1136, ECF. No. 45.
II. Discussion
The defendants ask the Court to transfer this case to the D.C. court, or, in the alternative,
to deny the Shawnee Tribe’s request for a preliminary injunction restraining Treasury from
disbursing the remaining Title V funds. For the reasons explained below, the Court declines to
address the merits of the Shawnee Tribe’s application for a preliminary injunction. Under the first-
to-file rule, the case should be transferred to the D.C. district court.
“[U]nder the first-to-file rule, when related cases are pending before two federal courts, the
court in which the case was last filed may refuse to hear it if the issues raised by the cases
substantially overlap.” Cherokee Nation v. Nash, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1165 (N.D. Okla. 2010)
(quoting Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 1999)). Three
considerations determine whether the rule applies: “(1) the chronology of actions; (2) the similarity
of parties, and (3) the similarity of issues.” Id. at 1168.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
THE SHAWNEE TRIBE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-CV-290 ) STEVEN MNUCHIN, et al., ) Defendants. )
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Shawnee Tribe’s motion for a preliminary
injunction (Doc. 3) and the defendants’ motion for transfer of venue (Doc. 20).
I. Background
In Title V of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act),
Congress allocated $8 billion for “Tribal governments” to help defray the cost of dealing with the
COVID-19 pandemic. Congress called for the money to be distributed based on each tribe’s
“increased expenditures” but left it up to the Secretary of the Treasury to determine how this would
be calculated:
[T]he the amount paid under this section for fiscal year 2020 to a Tribal government shall be the amount the Secretary shall determine, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and Indian Tribes, that is based on increased expenditures of each such Tribal government (or a tribally-owned entity of such Tribal government) relative to aggregate expenditures in fiscal year 2019 by the Tribal government (or tribally-owned entity) and determined in such manner as the Secretary determines appropriate to ensure that all amounts available under subsection (a)(2)(B) for fiscal year 2020 are distributed to Tribal governments.
42 U.S.C. § 801. Congress gave the Secretary until April 26, 2020—30 days from the passage of
the Act—to distribute the money.1
1 The Act set a deadline of “not later than 30 days after March 27, 2020” i.e., by April 26, 2020. § 801(b)(1). After soliciting input from tribes, the Treasury Department announced its distribution
methodology on May 5, 2020.2 Effective immediately, the Department said, it would begin
releasing an initial tranche of $4.8 billion, 60 percent of the total available. Because actual
expenses could not be predicted quickly and could favor tribes that run businesses, the first tranche
was being distributed based on each tribe’s population as estimated by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development for its Indian Housing Block Grant program.3 A subsequent round of
funding would distribute the remaining 40 percent based on employment data collected from the
tribes, the Treasury Department said.
The Tribe contends that the Secretary’s method for distributing the initial tranche of funds
was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the
Department relied on data it knew to be faulty when calculating each tribe’s pro rata share, ignoring
other available data sets that were more accurate. Tribe claims that, because it does not receive
IHBG funds, the HUD data shows it to have a population of zero rather than 3,021, its actual
enrollment. As a result of the alleged error, the Tribe received the minimum payment of $100,000
rather than its rightful pro-rata share, which the Tribe estimates to be not less than $12 million.
The Tribe seeks an order directing the Secretary to withhold from the Department’s second round
of disbursements (roughly $3.2 billion), an amount of money equal to that the Tribe would have
received had the Department relied on more accurate data.
This suit comes on the heels of three others, filed in the District Court for the District of
Columbia, related to the Treasury Department’s handling of the Title V funds. In Confederated
2 U.S Dep’t. of the Treasury, Coronavirus Relief Fund Allocations to Tribal Governments (May 5, 2020), http://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Coronavirus-Relief-Fund-Tribal- Allocation-Methodology.pdf. 3 Id. 2 Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Mnuchin, a group of tribes challenged Treasury’s plan to
include Alaska Native regional and village corporations (“ANCs”) in its distribution. ANCs, the
tribes argued, are not “Tribal governments” under the CARES Act. See Confederated Tribes of the
Chehalis Reservation v. Mnuchin, No. 20-CV-1002 (APM), 2020 WL 3489479 (D.D.C. June 26,
2020), appeal docketed, No. 20-5205 (D.C. Cir. July 14, 2020). Ultimately, the court held that
ANCs are “Tribal governments” for the purposes of the CARES Act but directed Treasury to
withhold the money earmarked for them until the matter is resolved on appeal. See Confederated
Tribes, No. 20-CV-1002, ECF No. 107.
In Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Mnuchin, a tribe sought to enjoin the Treasury
Department from disbursing the second tranche of CARES Act funds, arguing that the
Department’s reliance on faulty population data caused it to short the tribe by more than $7 million.
Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Mnuchin, No. 20-CV-1491 (APM), 2020 WL 3402298
(D.D.C. June 11, 2020). The court denied the requested relief, citing the tribe’s doubtful prospects
for success on the merits, its undue delay in bringing the suit, and harm to the public interest caused
by further delaying disbursement of the remaining funds. Id. at *2–3.
Finally, in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Mnuchin, a group of tribes sought
an injunction ordering the Treasury Department, which had blown by Congress’s disbursement
deadline, to release the funds under its control. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v.
Mnuchin, No. 20-CV-1136 (APM), 2020 WL 3250701 (D.D.C. June 15, 2020). Treasury had
sought to set aside some $679 million to resolve claims by tribes that had lost out due the
Department’s reliance on HUD’s population estimates, but the court, citing its decision in Prairie
Band, ordered the Department to disburse all Title V funds except those on hold due to the
litigation in Confederated Tribes. See Agua Caliente, 2020 WL 3250701, at *1 & n.1, *4.
3 After the court’s order in Agua Caliente, the government began distributing the second
tranche of Title V funds. As of June 25, 2020, all that remained was (1) $1.4 million that had been
held up due to payment processing issues, and (2) the money earmarked for the ANCs, which
remains subject to the D.C. court’s injunction in Confederated Tribes. See Agua Caliente, No. 20-
CV-1136, ECF. No. 45.
II. Discussion
The defendants ask the Court to transfer this case to the D.C. court, or, in the alternative,
to deny the Shawnee Tribe’s request for a preliminary injunction restraining Treasury from
disbursing the remaining Title V funds. For the reasons explained below, the Court declines to
address the merits of the Shawnee Tribe’s application for a preliminary injunction. Under the first-
to-file rule, the case should be transferred to the D.C. district court.
“[U]nder the first-to-file rule, when related cases are pending before two federal courts, the
court in which the case was last filed may refuse to hear it if the issues raised by the cases
substantially overlap.” Cherokee Nation v. Nash, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1165 (N.D. Okla. 2010)
(quoting Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 1999)). Three
considerations determine whether the rule applies: “(1) the chronology of actions; (2) the similarity
of parties, and (3) the similarity of issues.” Id. at 1168.
The defendants urge the Court to apply these factors to all three of the Title V cases
summarized above, but only Confederated Tribes and Agua Caliente would seem to be relevant to
a first-to-file inquiry. The rule applies “when related cases are pending before two federal courts.”
Cadle, 174 F.3d at 603 (emphasis added). Consequently, “a number of courts have concluded that
the first-to-file rule has no application where the first-filed case is no longer pending. Hunter v.
Agility Energy, Inc., No. 18-CV-618 TS-PMW, 2019 WL 6118424, at *2 (D. Utah Nov. 18, 2019)
4 (collecting cases). The D.C. court has decided Prairie Band. The case is closed. Accordingly,
although Prairie Band involved nearly identical issues, the first-to-file rule simply does not apply.
Confederated Tribes and Agua Caliente, however, remain active. In Confederated Tribes,
the court ruled that ANCs were eligible for Title V funds but ordered Treasury to set aside the
funding it had earmarked for them until the D.C. Circuit decided the case on appeal. That
injunction remains in place. In Agua Caliente, the D.C. district court ordered the Treasury
Department to disburse all remaining Title V funds, including the $679 million set aside to resolve
the claims of tribes that had been underfunded during the first round of disbursements due to bad
population estimates. As of the date of this order, the Department was still reporting its efforts to
comply with the court’s directive.
Even when the inquiry is limited to Confederated Tribes and Agua Caliente, all three of
the first-to-file rule’s factors weigh in favor of transfer. The chronology of the actions is not in
dispute: the plaintiffs in Confederated Tribes and Agua Caliente brought their suits in the D.C.
district court long before Shawnee Tribe filed its suit here in the Northern District of Oklahoma.
The parties are also similar. Both the first-filed cases involved suits by tribes that, like the
Shawnee, were due to receive Title V funds, and both suits named Mr. Mnuchin, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, as a defendant. Finally, the issues in this case substantially
overlap with the issues in the first-filed cases. Resolution of the primary issue in this case, whether
the Treasury Department must revisit its distribution formula, would require the Court to determine
the degree to which the Department can further delay distribution of the Title V funds, which was
the question in Agua Caliente. Similarly, because the relief sought by the Shawnee would
necessarily come at the expense of the ANCs, the Shawnee’s suit is effectively a collateral attack
on the injunction granted by the D.C. court in Confederated Tribes.
5 These are precisely the type of problems that the first-to-file rule seeks to avoid.
Federal courts have recognized that, as courts of coordinate jurisdiction and equal rank, they must be careful to avoid interfering with each other’s affairs in order ‘to avoid the waste of duplication, to avoid rulings which may trench upon the authority of sister courts, and to avoid piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform result.’
Buzas Baseball, Inc. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Georgia, 189 F.3d 477 (10th Cir. 1999)
(quoting Sutter Corp. v. P & P Indus., Inc., 125 F.3d 914, 917 (5th Cir.1997)). Because the first-
to-file factors are met, and because the Court cannot grant the requested relief without “trenching
upon the authority” of its sister court in Washington D.C., the Court declines to exercise its
jurisdiction to hear this matter.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, the defendants’ motion for transfer of venue (Doc. 20) is
granted. The Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to transfer the case to the District Court for the
District of Columbia.
SO ORDERED this 28th day of July, 2020.