US DISTRICT COURT RULING LAWSUIT SPANNING 8 YEARS COMES TO A DRAW - March 2025
By Vivian LaMoore, Inaajimowin Editor
A three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion on Wednesday, February 12, 2025, in the Mille Lacs Band law enforcement authority case. The Court has dismissed the case, ruling the County’s appeal is moot — meaning the County’s appeal is irrelevant. The lawsuit, which spanned nearly 8 years, is now at an anti-climactic draw. While there is no clear victor in the lawsuit, the Band has had significant victories along the way. The case was filed by the Band in 2017 in response to Mille Lacs County abruptly terminating the law enforcement authority agreement of tribal police officers. At the core of the lawsuit is the long-standing dispute over the Reservation boundaries.
The Non-Removable Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe has consistently held that the boundaries of the 61,000-acre Reservation that were outlined in the 1855 Treaty were never disestablished or diminished. The County has invariably stated the Reservation boundaries are the approximately 4,000 acres of land held in trust by the federal government.
In 2016, without warning or discussion, the County ended the mutual aid joint powers law enforcement agreement with the Band, leaving the tribal police officers without authority to investigate state and federal crimes. The lack of tribal police authority left the Reservation in a state of lawlessness. While the officers’ hands were tied, crime increased on the Reservation. Gangs who targeted the Reservation, knowing their chances of being arrested were slim, brought with them drugs and violence, and overdoses increased significantly.
The Band, along with then Chief of Police Sara Rice and Sergeant Derrick Naumann, filed this case in 2017 to address a law enforcement crisis on the Reservation. "That crisis was triggered by the County’s revocation of a cooperative agreement with the Band," said Marc Slonim, attorney for the Band.
"The County asserted that without [joint powers] agree ment, the Band had only very limited law enforcement author ity on 3,600 acres of trust lands within the 61,000-acre Reser vation, and its demand that the Band act as if the Reservation had been disestablished as the price of entering into a new agreement. The Band refused to give in to the County’s demand. "It ob tained law enforcement assistance from the Bureau of Indian Affairs after Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke visited the Reservation in September 2017," Slonim said. "One year later, the Band entered into a new, interim agreement with the County after the County withdrew its demand that the Band act as if the Reservation had been disestablished."
The County had tried to find a court to make a ruling on the Reservation boundary issue for decades. In 2002, the County initiated a lawsuit against the Band seeking a ruling on the Reservation boundary. That case was eventually dismissed and thrown out of court because the County could not prove they were harmed in any way by the Band, regardless of where the Reservation boundary was.
After filing the lawsuit in 2017, the Band and the County were back in court presenting their arguments and landed before the United States District Court. The Band had several victories before this Court.
In December 2020, Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson ruled that the Band was indeed harmed by the actions of the County by restricting tribal law enforcement authority, and the Band could move forward with the case.
In March of 2022, Judge Nelson issued a 98-page opinion confirming the original 61,000-acre Reservation had never been disestablished or diminished in any way. The long-await ed ruling was a major victory for the Mille Lacs Band and, more broadly, for Tribal sovereignty.
In January 2023, Judge Nelson ruled in favor of the Mille Lacs Band again. The ruling affirmed that the County had im properly restricted the Band's law enforcement authority. The County appealed Judge Nelson’s decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
While the appeal was pending, the State of Minnesota Legislature amended Minnesota statutes 626.90 and 626.93 by removing the requirement that the Mille Lacs Band enter into a joint powers agreement with the county for Tribal police to enforce state law. Amending the state law eliminating the cooper ative agreement was the real solution, Slonim said. The amend ed law "prevents any county from holding tribal law enforcement authority hostage to arbitrary demands," Slonim said.
Due to the change in that statute, the Band now has more law enforcement authority than it has ever had, as a matter of state law, and the County can’t change that. This was another major victory for the Band. After the statute was amended, the Band filed a motion to dismiss the County appeals as moot. The Band argued that the amended statute had completely resolved the law enforcement dispute that gave rise to the case and, therefore, the appeals were moot.
The Band and the County faced off before the federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 12, 2024, to argue before the three-judge panel regarding the County’s appeal from Judge Nelson's rulings and the motion filed by the Band to dismiss the case as moot. Marc Slonim, attorney for the Band, argued that because the lawsuit was based on the policing authority of tribal police officers and that authority has now been af f irmed by state law, that portion of the case was now moot. He added the Band would “prefer the lower court’s decision not be vacated, but recognize there are other considerations on that issue.”
On February 12, 2025, the Eighth Circuit Panel ruling agreed that the case is moot. Indeed, it found that the amended state stat ute conferred broader authority on Band officers than the Band had been seeking in the lawsuit. This is a victory for the Band. Because the case was moot, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals and directed the District Court to vacate its prior decisions, including its decision on the Reservation boundaries. A vacated decision is not binding on the parties to the case and is no longer legal precedent. The Court of Appeals reasoned, in part, that it would be unfair to allow the District Court’s decision on an important and controversial issue to stand without a chance for appellate review. This means that either party could choose to file another lawsuit to have another court issue a ruling on the Reservation boundary.
The panel concluded by expressly leaving the Reservation boundary issue to be decided in another case stating:
“Given this complex history, ambiguities abound. In these circumstances, [vacating the District Court’s decision] is appropriate so this longstanding Indian country issue, which presents itself in a variety of specific contexts, can be addressed in a live controversy where it will be subject to appellate review.”
In a concurring opinion, one judge on the panel stated he would not have addressed the Reservation boundary issue at all stating: “The questions of whether or not the treaties and the Nelson Act operated to disestablish the Reservation, with its 1855 boundaries, or whether the subsequent acts of Congress reestablished the reservation, either within its 1855 or other boundaries, remain open to be decided at some future date. I would remain silent on the issue and leave the ultimate factual analysis to a subsequent court to wrestle with based on the record that is developed in that future case.”
The 8th Circuit’s decision contains a discussion of the boundary issue on the merits. Because the Court did not have jurisdiction to discuss the merits of a moot case, the Band has filed a petition for rehearing requesting that the Court remove that discussion from its decision.
In summary, after the Court’s Feb. 12, 2025 decision, the County, County Sheriff, and County Attorney’s appeals have been dismissed as moot, the District Court’s decisions have been vacated, and the Reservation boundary issue remains open to be decided in another case.
This case has been complicated, lengthy, and costly to both parties — spanning nearly eight years. The Federal Depart ment of Interior issued the M-Opinion in 2015 stating the Mille Lacs Reservation had never been disestablished or diminished. In 2020, the State of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Elli son, backed by Governor Tim Walz, asserted a legal filing that the Reservation still exists. Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Bois Forte Band of Chippewa, Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, and National Congress of American Indians all filed amicus briefs in support of the Mille Lacs Band Reservation.
In the end, it was not the Courts who issued the final de termination of the law enforcement authority of Mille Lacs Tribal Police. It was the State Legislature who amended the state statute, legally giving Tribal Police broad law enforcement authority throughout the 1855 Reservation boundary that resolved in the Band’s favor the underlying issue in the case. Another victory.
"The Eighth Circuit’s decision confirms that the Band now has very broad law enforcement authority — commensurate with that of the County Sheriff — throughout the 1855 Reservation boundaries, rejecting the County’s arguments to the contrary and putting an end to the County’s efforts to hobble Band law enforcement authority," Slonim said. "The Court also held that, because the law enforcement issue has been resolved, there is no need to decide whether the 1855 Reservation was disestablished or diminished. The Band continues to maintain that the Reservation, which its ancestors sacrificed so much to preserve, remains intact."