Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
FLANDREAU SANTEE SIOUX TRIBE, a federally
recognized Indian tribe,
PO Box 283
Flandreau, South Dakota, 57028
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE,
1400 Independence Ave, S.W.
Washington, DC 20250

Civil Action No.

19-4094

HON. SONNY PERDUE, in his official capacity,
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
1400 Independence Ave, S.W.
Washington, DC 20250
Defendants.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Plaintiff the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe (“Tribe”) brings this complaint seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief.
INTRODUCTION
1.

This is an action against the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”)

and defendant Sonny Perdue, Secretary of Agriculture, in his official capacity (“Secretary”),
seeking review of USDA’s unlawful extension of its regulatory reach beyond its limited statutory
authority and its disregard of its congressionally mandated duties.
2.

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-334, December 20, 2018,

132 Stat. 4490 (“2018 Farm Bill”) removed “hemp” from the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C.

1 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 2

§ 801 et seq. (“CSA”) and amended the Agricultural Marketing Act, 7 U.S.C. §§1639o-1639s
(2018) (“AMA”) to provide for the production of hemp.
3.

The AMA allows states and tribes to opt for primary regulatory jurisdiction over

the production of hemp in their territory under AMA section 297B, 7 U.S.C. §1639p. Alternatively,
it allows for states and tribes to opt for Secretarial jurisdiction over hemp production in their
territory under AMA section 297C, 7 U.S.C. §1639q.
4.

Tribes and states that opt for primary regulatory jurisdiction under section 297B

submit a plan to the Secretary (“section 297B plan”). Tribal and state plans “shall only be required
to include” seven discrete requirements set by Congress. AMA §297B(a)(2), 7 U.S.C. §1369p(a)(2).
The words “shall only be required to include” were intentionally added by Congress to
specifically limit the Secretary’s authority to impose additional requirements on states and tribes.
5.

In meeting those requirements, the statute only calls for the state or tribe to

encompass in their section 297B plan “a practice” or “a procedure” to meet all the seven
criteria. AMA §297B(a)(2)(A)(i)-(vi), 7 U.S.C. §1369p(a)(2)(A)(i-vi). “A certification” of
adequate resources and personnel is also required. AMA §297B(a)(2)(A)(vii); 7 U.S.C. §1369p(a)
(2)(A)(vii).
6.

To strengthen the respect for, and primacy of, state and tribal decision making

under section 297B, Congress also provided that state and tribal plans may also include “any other
practice or procedure established by a State or Indian tribe, as applicable, to the extent that the
practice or procedure is consistent with this subtitle.” AMA §297B(a)(2)(B), 7 U.S.C.
§1639p(a)(2)(B). See also AMA §297B(a)(3), 7 U.S.C. §1639p(a)(3) (stating that no law of a state
or Indian tribe regulating the production of hemp is preempted by this subsection if it is more
stringent than Subtitle G of the AMA.)

2 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 3

7.

The Secretary is mandated to approve a state and tribal plan that meets the above

referenced requirements. AMA §297B(b)(1)(A), 7 U.S.C. §1369p(b)(1)(A) (the “Secretary shall .
. . approve the State or Tribal plan if the State or Tribal plan complies with subsection (a).”)
8.

Likewise, the Secretary is prohibited from disapproving plans that meet the above

referenced requirements. AMA §297B(b)(1)(B), 7 U.S.C. §1369p(b)(1)(B) (the “Secretary shall .
. . disapprove the State or Tribal plan only if the State or Tribal plan does not comply with
subsection (a).”)
9.

The Secretary must approve or disapprove a section 297B plan “no later than 60

days after receipt.” AMA §297B(b)(1), 7 U.S.C. §1639p(b)(1). See also H.R. Rep. No. 115-1072,
at 737 (“Conf. Rep.”) (“Within 60 days of receiving a state or tribal plan, the Secretary must
approve or deny the plan.”).
10.

Thus, the Secretary’s statutory duty and statutory limitations are expressed in the

following mandatory commands: (1) that plans “shall only be required to include” certain
requirements; (2) that the Secretary “shall . . . approve” a plan that complies and “shall
disapprove . . . only” if a plan does not comply with setting out those requirements; and (3) that
the Secretary has “not later than 60 days after receipt” to approve or disapprove a plan.
11.

For tribes and states that “forego developing and submitting” a section 297B plan

or for which a section 297B plan is “denied or revoked,” the production of hemp within that state
or tribal territory shall be subject to a plan established by the Secretary under section 297C, 7
U.S.C. §1639q. Conf. Rep. at 737-738.
12.

Nothing in section 297B prohibits the production of hemp in a State or territory of

an Indian tribe for which a section 297B plan is not approved, if such production “is in accordance

3 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 4

with section 297C or other Federal laws (including regulations) . . . and . . . if the production of
hemp is not otherwise prohibited by the State or Indian tribe.” AMA §297B(f), 7 U.S.C. §1639p(f).
13.

Here, the Tribe opted for primary regulatory jurisdiction under section 297B and

submitted its section 297B plan, which was received by the Secretary on March 8, 2019 (“Tribal
Plan”).1 The Tribe has expressed and USDA is aware that the 2019 hemp growing season has
already started on the Tribe’s lands and that the window to plant will end soon. The Tribe has also
told USDA in all of its meetings that it has already expended funds in reliance upon the plain
language of the statute. The Tribe submitted its section 297B plan to the Secretary on March 8,
2019 to allow time for the Secretary to act within the 60 days mandated by the AMA and before
the 2019 growing season started.
14.

The Secretary did not approve or deny the Tribe’s section 297B plan within 60 days

of receipt and has still not acted on the plan. Instead, the Secretary stated that, as “required by
law, USDA is committed to completing its review of plans within 60 days . . . once regulations are
effective.” April 24, 2019 letter from the Secretary to the Tribe (“Acknowledgment Letter”).2
15.

Further, based to his failure to approve the Tribe’s section 297B plan, the Secretary

is denying the Tribe the ability to operate pursuant to the AMA, in contravention of section
297B(f), 7 U.S.C. §1639p(f). See Acknowledgment Letter (stating that the Secretary will hold the
Tribe’s plan and that, in the interim, the Tribe “may continue to operate under authorities of the
2014 Farm Bill.”).3 See also Questions and Answers, Question 7 (available at

 A true and correct copy of the Tribal Plan is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1. 
2
 A true and correct copy of the Acknowledgment Letter is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit
 
1

2.
3
 Prior to enactment of the AMA, the Tribe did not have authority under the 2014 Farm Bill. See
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. Drug Enf't Admin., 190 F. Supp. 3d 843, 852 (E.D.
Wis. 2016) (denying “the Tribe’s request for declaratory relief to the effect that ‘State’ as used in
the [Agricultural Act of 2014] includes Indian tribes”
in response to a Drug Enforcement Agency
 
i4

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 5

https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/hemp-production-program-questions-andanswers) (“Questions and Answers”) (“Question 7: When can growers begin planting hemp in
compliance with the authorities of the 2018 Farm Bill? Until the USDA regulation is finalized and
published in the Federal Register, research and development initiatives authorized in the 2014
Farm Bill remain in effect); USDA February 27, 2019 Notice to Trade (available at
https://www.ams.usda.gov/content/hemp-production-program) (“Notice to Trade”) (same).
16.

This denial of authority under the AMA, in turn, denies the Tribe the protections to

interstate commerce for hemp producers as carried forward in the statute. 2018 Farm Bill, §
10114(b); note following 7 U.S.C. § 1639o. See also Conf. Rep. at 736 (“nothing in this title
authorizes interference with the interstate commerce of hemp.”). But see Big Sky Sci. LLC v. Idaho
State Police, No. 1:19-CV-00040-REB, 2019 WL 438336, at *6 (D. Idaho Feb. 2, 2019) (holding
that hemp must be produced in accordance with the AMA to enjoy the interstate commerce
protections upheld in the 2018 Farm Bill).
17.

The Secretary’s failure to act on the Tribe’s Plan, or acknowledge that the Tribe

can proceed under the authorities of the AMA, is today threatening the Tribe with a loss of jobs,
income for irreplaceable tribal services like timely police protection, timely delivery of health care
services, burial assistance, timely delivery of food and nutrition for families, and other essential
governmental functions.

raid on a Tribal hemp operation conducted under tribal authority on tribal territory). Cf. United
States v. White Plume, No. CIV. 02-5071-JLV, 2016 WL 1228585 (D.S.D. Mar. 28, 2016)
(refusing to lift an injunction prohibiting the growing of industrial hemp under the 2014 Farm
Bill by a tribal member in Indian Country within the exterior boundaries of South Dakota.) It is
thus unclear what 2014 Farm Bill authorities the Tribe may “continue” to operate under. 
5 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 6 of 30 PageID #: 6

18.

The Tribe therefore seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary to approve

the Tribe’s plan as meeting the mandatory criteria set by statute and that this approval be issued
immediately to allow the Tribe to engage in the 2019 growing season.
19.

The Tribe also seeks a judicial declaration holding that the Tribe may operate

pursuant to the AMA, so long as its hemp production remains in accordance with other Federal
laws (including regulations) and not otherwise prohibited by the Tribe, on the basis that (1) hemp
production under the Tribe’s qualifying Tribal law constitutes hemp production in accordance with
federal law, pursuant to section 297B(f), or (2) the Tribe’s qualifying section 297B plan must be
deemed approved despite the Secretary’s inaction, or both.
20.

The Tribe also seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the

USDA’s interference with the Tribe’s hemp regulation and production under the AMA.
THE PARTIES
21.

The Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe is an Indian tribe recognized as eligible for the

special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as
Indians. Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the United State Bureau
of Indian Affairs, 83 Fed. Reg. 34863 (July 23, 2018). The Tribe is located on the Flandreau
Santee Sioux Reservation and is headquartered at 603 West Broad Avenue, Flandreau, South
Dakota, 57028.
22.

Defendant United States Department of Agriculture is an executive agency within

the United States government established to carry out acts of Congress concerning food,
agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues. The USDA is
subject to, and derives its authority to regulate hemp from, the AMA. The USDA is headquartered
at 1400 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, DC 20250.

6 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 7 of 30 PageID #: 7

23.

Defendant Sonny Perdue is the Secretary of the USDA, with offices located at 1400

Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, DC 20250. In this capacity, the Secretary has the
responsibility to administer the USDA, and carry out and enforce the acts of Congress applicable
to the USDA. Secretary Perdue is sued in his official capacity. The defendants are sometimes
collectively referred to herein as the “Secretary.”
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
24.

This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337,

and 1362, because this is a civil action arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States,
this is a civil action arising under one or more Acts of Congress regulating commerce, and this is
a civil action brought by an Indian tribe with a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary
of Interior wherein the matter in controversy arises under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of
the United States.
25.

This action arises under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States,

including, but not necessarily limited to the following: the Indian Commerce Clause, U.S. Const.
art. I, § 8, cl. 3; the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-596 and §§ 701-706, and the
accompanying regulations, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, the All Writs
Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1651, and federal common law.
26.

This court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), in that this is a

civil action against the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded upon the
Constitution, Acts of Congress, including but not necessarily limited to the provisions previously
described.
27.

This court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, in that this is a civil

action in the nature of mandamus seeking to compel an officer or employee of the United States

7 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 8 of 30 PageID #: 8

or an agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the Plaintiff, which duty arises under the
Constitution and laws of the United States, including but not necessarily limited to the provisions
previously described.
28.

The sovereign immunity of the United States has been waived with respect to the

subject matter of this action and the relief requested herein by the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 702.
29.

Venue in this action lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), §

1391(b)(2), § 1391(e)(1)(A), and § 1392(e)(1)(B), in that this is a civil action against an officer or
employee of the United States or any agency thereof acting in his or her official capacity or under
color of legal authority, or an agency of the United States or the United States, and a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred within this district, and one or
more defendants resides within this district.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
I. The Tribe
30.

The Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe is comprised primarily of descendants of the

Mdewakanton, Wahpekute and other bands of the Santee, or Dakota, division of the Great Sioux
Nation. In 1869, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the Fort Laramie Treaty of
1868, art. VI, 15 Stat. 635, twenty-five Santee Sioux families established a colony of homesteads
along the Big Sioux River in the area that would become Flandreau, South Dakota.
31.

The colony of Santee Sioux at Flandreau formed a Tribal Council in 1929. After

Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (the “IRA” or the “Act”), the colony
voted in 1935 to accept the Act pursuant to section 18 of the Act, 25 U.S.C. § 5125, and the
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe organized under a Constitution and Bylaws, ratified by the Tribe and
approved by the Secretary of the Interior in 1936 pursuant to section 16 of the Act, 25 U.S.C. §

8 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 9 of 30 PageID #: 9

5123. Later that year, the Secretary of the Interior issued the Tribe a Corporate Charter pursuant
to section 17 of the Act, 25 U.S.C. § 5124.
32.

The Tribe’s territory is generally known as the Flandreau Indian Reservation, and

is comprised of lands held in trust by the United States government on behalf of the Tribe pursuant
to and in accordance with the IRA and other applicable federal laws.
33.

The Flandreau Indian Reservation includes, among other lands, 559 acres acquired

by the United States under the provisions of section 5 of the IRA, 25 U.S.C. § 5108, for the use
and benefit of the Tribe, which lands the Secretary of the Interior proclaimed, pursuant to section
7 of the IRA, 25 U.S.C. § 5110, “to be an Indian Reservation, to be known as the Flandreau Indian
Reservation, South Dakota[.]” Proclamation, Flandreau Indian Reservation, South Dakota, 1 Fed.
Reg. 1226 (Aug. 27, 1936).
34.

In accordance with the Tribe’s federally approved Constitution, the Tribe exercises

civil regulatory authority over the activities of all persons within the Flandreau Indian Reservation.
This includes regulating and taxing commercial activities generally, and the activities provided in
the Tribal Plan to monitor and regulate the production of hemp on its Reservation.
II. Hemp Production under the 2018 Farm Bill
A. In General
35.

Industrial hemp is an agricultural commodity used in a wide variety of products

including cosmetics and personal care products, nutritional supplements, clothing and spun fiber,
plastics and oil based products, paper, human and animal food, construction and insulation
material, and other manufactured goods. Due in part to its versatility and superior performance,
current industry estimates report that domestic sales of hemp products total around $700 million
annually. Renée Johnson, Cong. Research, Serv., RL32725, Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity,
R. Johnson, summary (2018).
9 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 10 of 30 PageID #: 10

36.

More than 30 nations grow industrial hemp as a commodity product. Id at 1. In the

United States, most hemp products are grown abroad and imported. Id. This is due to the drug
enforcement laws in the United States, which, until recently, did not distinguish between industrial
hemp and marijuana, which are genetically distinct forms of the plant Cannabis sativa. Id. at 1-2.
37.

In December 2018, Congress passed and the President signed into law the 2018

Farm Bill. Among other things, the 2018 Farm Bill amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of
1946, 7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq., to define “hemp” and to allow for hemp production. The 2018 Farm
Bill also removed “hemp” from the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., making it
legal to grow and possess hemp and hemp seeds. See 2018 Farm Bill, §12619, (amending the
Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §802(16)). See also United States v. Mallory, No. CV 3:181289, 2019 WL 1061677, at *6 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 6, 2019) (“The 2018 Farm Bill expressly allows
hemp, its seeds, and hemp-derived products to be transported across State lines.”); USDA
Agricultural Marketing Service, Bulletin, Importation of Hemp Seeds (April 19, 2019) available
at:

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAAMS/bulletins/23f8ef9

(regulating

the

importation of hemp seeds). The 2018 Farm Bill also upholds protections to the interstate
commerce of hemp and hemp products, setting forth that nothing “in this title . . . prohibits the
interstate commerce of hemp . . . . No State or Indian Tribe shall prohibit the transportation or
shipment of hemp or hemp products produced in accordance with [the AMA] through the State or
the territory of the Indian Tribe, as applicable.” 2018 Farm Bill, §10114; note following 7 U.S.C.
§ 1639o.
38.

The AMA, as amended by the 2018 Farm Bill, addresses “Hemp Production” in

States and Tribal territories. See generally, 7 U.S.C. 1639o-1639s (2019). States and tribes desiring
“primary regulatory authority” over hemp production shall submit a plan to the Secretary pursuant

10 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 11 of 30 PageID #: 11

to the criteria outlined in section 297B of the AMA, 7 U.S.C. §1639p(a)(2) (2019) (“section 297B
plan”).
39.

A second option is to allow the Secretary to establish a plan for states and tribes for

which a section 297B plan is not approved. AMA §297C, 7 U.S.C. §1639q (2019) (“section 297C
plan”). Operation in accordance with the USDA’s section 297C plan is for “states and tribal
territories that forego developing and submitting a state or tribal hemp production plan.” Conf.
Rep. at 738. Operation under section 297C is also intended in a state or tribal area for which a
section 297B plan was denied or revoked. Conf. Rep. at 737 (“If a state or tribal plan is denied or
revoked, the Managers intend for hemp production in that state or tribal area to fall under the
Secretary’s jurisdiction as authorized in section 297C.”) See also AMA §297C(c)(1), 7 U.S.C.
§1639q(c)(1) (stating that in the case of a state or tribe for which a section 297B plan is not
approved, it shall be unlawful to produce hemp without a license issued by USDA pursuant to a
section 297C plan).
40.

The 2018 Farm Bill also contains a sunset provision for hemp production under 7

U.S.C. § 5940, as amended by section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, PL 113-79, February
7, 2014, 128 Stat 649 (“2014 Farm Bill”). This sunset provision allows states with industrial hemp
research programs established under the 2014 Farm Bill to continue operating under such program
until one year after the USDA establishes its 297C plan. 2018 Farm Bill, § 7605(b).
41.

Unlike states, tribes could not establish hemp research programs under the 2014

Farm Bill and, in fact, risked criminal enforcement action for attempting to exercise authority
under the 2014 Farm Bill. See Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. Drug Enf't Admin., 190 F.
Supp. 3d 843, 852 (E.D. Wis. 2016) (denying “the Tribe’s request for declaratory relief to the
effect that ‘State’ as used in the [Agricultural Act of 2014] includes Indian tribes” in response to a

11 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 12 of 30 PageID #: 12

Drug Enforcement Agency raid on a Tribal hemp operation conducted under tribal authority on
tribal territory). Cf. United States v. White Plume, No. CIV. 02-5071-JLV, 2016 WL 1228585
(D.S.D. Mar. 28, 2016) (refusing to lift an injunction prohibiting the growing of industrial hemp
by a tribal member in Indian Country within the exterior boundaries of South Dakota.).
B. Section 297B Plan Approval and Disapproval Requirements
42.

After a state or a tribe submits a section 297B plan to the Secretary, the AMA

requires that the Secretary either approve or disapprove the plan “no later than 60 days after receipt
. . . .” AMA §297B(b)(1), 7 U.S.C. §1639p(b)(1). See also H.R. Rep. No. 115-1072, at 737 (2018)
(Conf. Rep.) (“Within 60 days of receiving a state or tribal plan, the Secretary must approve or
deny the plan . . . .).
43.

The Secretary is required to consult with the Attorney General in carrying out its

requirement to approve or deny a plan within 60 days of receipt (AMA §297B(b)(3), 7 U.S.C.
§1639p(b)(3)), and in promulgating regulations and guidelines implementing the AMA provisions
on hemp production. AMA § 297D, 7 U.S.C. §1639r(a)(1)(B). As it relates to USDA’s deadlines,
however, Congress clearly instructs as follows: “The consultation with the Attorney General
should not alter the 60 day requirement to approve or deny a plan.” Conf. Rep. at 737.
44.

The Secretary may “disapprove the State or Tribal plan only if the State or Tribal

Plan does not comply with subsection (a).” AMA §297B(b)(1)(B), 7 U.S.C. §1639p(b)(1)(B)
(emphasis supplied). Subsection (a) identifies the submission and minimum content requirements
of a tribal or state section 297B plan. AMA §297B(a)(2), 7 U.S.C. §1639p(a)(2). Nothing in section
297B(a) “preempts or limits any law of a Sate or Indian tribe that . . . regulates the production of
hemp . . . and . . . is more stringent than [the hemp production subtitle of the AMA].” AMA
§297B(a)(3)(A), 7 U.S.C. §1639p(a)(3)(A) (2019).

12 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 13

45.

If a plan is not approved, nothing in the AMA prohibits the production of hemp in

the State or Indian tribal territory provided such production is either in accordance with the
USDA’s section 297C plan or with other Federal laws (including regulations) and is not otherwise
prohibited by the State or Indian Tribe. AMA §297B(f), 7 U.S.C. §1639p(f).
III. The Tribal Plan
46.

On March 8, 2019, the Tribe submitted to the Secretary its section 297B plan to

monitor and regulate the production of hemp on its Reservation pursuant to section 297B, 7 U.S.C.
§1639p.
47.

The Tribal Plan is consistent with (and more stringent than) section 297B(a)(2), 7

U.S.C. §1639p(a)(2) as it contains the following:
- A practice to maintain relevant information regarding land on which hemp is
produced in the territory of the Tribe, including a legal description of the land, for
a period of not less than 3 calendar years (pursuant to Ch. 8, Title 30 of the
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe Law and Order Code (“Industrial Hemp
Ordinance”)).
- A procedure for testing, using post-decarboxylation, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol
concentration levels of hemp produced in the territory of the Tribe (Chapters 10-11
of the Industrial Hemp Ordinance).
- A procedure for the effective disposal of products that are produced in violation of
the AMA (Chapter 12 of the Industrial Hemp Ordinance).
- A procedure to comply with the enforcement procedures under 7 U.S.C. §1639p(e)
(Chapter 15 of the Industrial Hemp Ordinance).

13 
 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 14 of 30 PageID #: 14

- A procedure for conducting annual inspections of, at a minimum, a random sample
of hemp producers to verify that hemp is not produced in violation of this
subchapter (Chapters 10-11 of the Industrial Hemp Ordinance).4
- A procedure for submitting to the Secretary of Agriculture the information
described in section 297C (Chapter 8 of the Industrial Hemp Ordinance).
- A certification that the Tribe has the resources and personnel to carry out the
practices and procedure described (Tribal Resolution 19-23 Approving the
Industrial Hemp Ordinance, Chapters 1, 4, and 9 of Industrial Hemp Ordinance).
See also, Letter from Anthony Reider, Tribal President, to Sonia Jimenez, Deputy
Administrator, USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (May 6, 2019) (on file with
the Tribe).
48.

While it was finalizing and after it submitted the Tribal Plan, the Tribe participated

in several meetings with the USDA to ensure a smooth transition to hemp production on the Tribe’s
lands.
49.

The Tribe participated in a 2018 Farm Bill listening session on March 13, 2019. On

that call, the Tribe highlighted and placed onto the record the harms it will face if USDA does not
comply with the AMA and timely move the Tribal Plan forward.
50.

The Tribe met with USDA on March 19, 2019. During that meeting, the Tribe and

USDA discussed the Tribal Plan and the need of the Tribe to move forward pursuant to the AMA
under its Tribal Plan.

                                                            
4

 The Tribal Plan is more stringent than the AMA as it requires a site inspection of all hemp
producers upon the Tribal Hemp Control Officer’s receipt of a harvest notification. Industrial
Hemp Ordinance, §30-11-13.  

14 
 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 15 of 30 PageID #: 15

51.

On May 13, 2019, the Tribe again met with USDA to discuss state and tribal

authority under the AMA and the pressing need of the Tribe to implement its plan on its territory.
It has subsequently and on multiple occasions communicated with USDA regarding its pressing
concerns over USDA’s unlawful position and continued failure to act.
IV. USDA Violates the AMA
A.
52.

USDA Fails to Act on the Tribal Plan within 60 days of receipt
On May 6, 2019, the Tribe received a letter dated April 24, 2019 from the Secretary

(“Acknowledgment Letter”) stating that “it is [the USDA’s] goal to issue regulations in the fall of
2019 to accommodate the 2020 planting season,” and that, as “required by law, USDA is
committed to completing its review of plans within 60 days once regulations are effective.” See
also, February 27, 2019 Notice to Trade (available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/content/hempproduction-program) (same). The AMA, however, requires the Secretary to review section 297B
plans within 60 days of receipt. To remove any doubt, Congress instructed that consultation with
the Attorney General in carrying out section 297B should not alter the “requirement to approve or
deny a plan” within 60 days of receipt. Conf. Rep. at 737. Thus, USDA’s interpretation that its
consultation with the Attorney General to promulgate regulations (and review the Tribal Plan)
extends its 60-day deadline is directly contrary to the plain language of the AMA and the clearly
expressed intent of Congress.
53.

The Secretary neither approved nor disapproved the Tribal Plan within 60 days of

receiving the Tribal Plan.
54.

To date, the Secretary has neither approved nor disapproved the Tribal Plan.

55.

The stated reason for the Secretary’s failure to approve or disapprove the Tribal

Plan within 60 days of receipt was the Secretary’s desire to issue regulations before making any
such decisions on section 297B plans.
15 
 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 16 of 30 PageID #: 16

56.

The Secretary’s interpretation that the AMA requires (or allows) regulations to be

finalized and published in the Federal Register prior to the Secretary’s review and decision on a
section 297B plan is inconsistent with the AMA and exceeds the limited powers delegated to the
Secretary by Congress over hemp production on state or tribal land in accordance with the statute.
57.

In requiring tribal or state plans to have “a practice” or “a procedure” under section

297B(a)(2)(A), 7 U.S.C. 1639p(a)(2)(A), in order to implement “primary regulatory authority”
under the statute (AMA § 297B(a)(1), 7 U.S.C. §1639p(a)(1)), Congress intended for tribes and
states to have the flexibility to develop their own unique plans implementing the statutory
requirements that fit each location’s unique growing conditions and intended to limit the
Secretary’s review authority to whether the state or tribal plan meets the minimum statutory
requirements. Id. See also Conf. Rep., at 737 (“The Managers do not intend to limit what states
and tribal governments include in their state or tribal plan, as long as it is consistent with this
subtitle.”).
58.

As a result, federal regulations to guide the Secretary’s review, approval and

disapproval of section 297B plans are unnecessary, and cannot justify the Secretary’s delay and
refusal to act on such plans within 60 days.
59.

Congress did not authorize the Secretary, through inaction extending beyond the

60-day statutory deadline, to preclude hemp production under the AMA in a state or tribal territory
when the state or tribe has a valid, qualifying section 297B plan.
B. USDA Purports to Withhold the Authority of the Tribe to Act in Compliance with the
AMA Pending Regulations and Plan Approval
60.

The Secretary takes the view that until the Secretary’s delayed review of the Tribal

Plan is complete and the Tribal Plan is approved by the Secretary, hemp production is not allowed

16 
 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 17 of 30 PageID #: 17

in the Tribe’s territory under the AMA, and that in the meantime, hemp production in the Tribe’s
territory is allowed only under the 2014 Farm Bill.
61.

By purporting to withhold tribal and state authority under the AMA pending the

Secretary’s promulgation of regulations and plan approval, the Acknowledgment Letter and the
Secretary’s public guidance contravene the statutory provisions related to plan submission,
approval requirements, and hemp production under the AMA and the interstate commerce
protections in the 2018 Farm Bill.
62.

In the case of a state or tribe which has submitted a valid, qualifying section 297B

plan, and the Secretary has not acted on the plan within 60 days as required, the AMA nevertheless
allows hemp production in the state or tribal territory, either under state or tribal law regulating
hemp production that is more stringent than the hemp production subtitle of the AMA, or under
the submitted 297B plan that is deemed approved upon the Secretary’s failure to act within his
deadline.
63.

The AMA recognizes local authority in section 297B(a)(3), 7 U.S.C. §1639p(a)(3),

which provides that “nothing in this subsection preempts or limits any law of a State or Indian
tribe that . . . regulates the production of hemp . . . and . . . is more stringent than this subchapter.”
64.

In section 297B(f), the AMA authorizes hemp production under the local authority

that section 297B(a)(3) acknowledges. Section 297B(f) provides that a state or tribe is not
prohibited from producing hemp if their section 297B plan is not approved, provided such
production is in compliance with section 297C or other Federal laws (including regulations) and
not otherwise prohibited by the state or tribe. AMA §297B(f), 7 U.S.C. §1639p(f).
65.

With the 2018 Farm Bill’s amendment to the CSA, nothing in Federal law now

prohibits the production of hemp on federal or tribal land. As contemplated by the AMA, the Tribe

17 
 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 18 of 30 PageID #: 18

has enacted Tribal law which regulates the production of hemp within the Tribe’s territory and is
more stringent than the hemp production subtitle of the AMA. As such, production of hemp in the
Tribe’s territory in accordance with such Tribal law is also in accordance with Federal law. Such
hemp production is therefore authorized by section 297B(f), 7 U.S.C. §1639p(f).
66.

Also, and alternatively, hemp production on the Tribe’s territory is authorized under

the AMA because the Tribal Plan must be deemed approved. The Tribal Plan satisfies the
minimum requirements set forth in section 297B. The Tribal Plan would be approved but for the
Secretary’s failure to act as mandated by Congress. The AMA does not permit the Secretary to
prohibit hemp production within the Tribe’s territory in these circumstances. To the contrary,
Congress intended and expected that any state or tribe submitting a qualifying plan would be able
to have hemp production in accordance with the AMA within its territory within no more than 60
days.
67.

Purporting to ameliorate the effects of the Secretary’s inaction on the Tribal Plan,

the Acknowledgment Letter states that tribes “can continue operating under authorities of the 2014
Farm Bill [for] . . . 12 months after USDA has established [its] plan . . . .”
68.

The Questions and Answers, Question 7, similarly states as follows: “When can

growers begin planting hemp in compliance with the authorities of the 2018 Farm Bill? Until the
USDA regulation if finalized and published in the Federal Register, research and development
initiatives authorized in the 2014 Farm Bill remain in effect.”
69.

The Secretary’s interpretation advanced in the Acknowledgment Letter that tribes

can “continue to operate under authorities of the 2014 Farm Bill” is unfounded, as tribes were not
granted authority under the 2014 Farm Bill. See Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, 190 F.
Supp. 3d at 843.

18 
 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 19 of 30 PageID #: 19

70.

Because the Tribe’s section 297B plan was not disapproved or revoked (and

because the Secretary’s representation that the Tribe can operate under the 2014 Farm Bill does
nothing to mitigate the effects of the Secretary’s inaction), the Tribe requested on May 10, 2019,
that the Secretary issue an acknowledgment that the Tribe may operate in accordance with the
AMA pursuant to section 297B(f), 7 U.S.C. §1639p(f). The USDA has not issued any such
acknowledgment.
71.

The Secretary’s withholding of action on the Tribal Plan and purporting to withhold

the Tribe’s authority violates the AMA, and contradicts Congress’s clear intent to require action
within 60 days of receipt of the Tribe’s section 297B plan. It also violates Congress’s intent to
delineate and promote tribal hemp production (whether its section 297B plan is approved or not)
as separate and apart from continuing USDA jurisdiction under a section 297C plan.
V. The Tribe Has Been Harmed And Will Continue To Be Harmed By The USDA’s Failure to Act
72.

The Secretary’s withholding of action mandated under the AMA and unlawfully

interpreting the statute by purporting to withhold the Tribe’s authority under the AMA has harmed
and will continue to irreparably harm the Tribe. Based on the Tribe’s reliance on the plain
language of the AMA’s hemp production provisions, the Tribe removed two parcels from its
normal agricultural leasing program, dedicated them to the production of hemp in the 2019
growing season, and dedicated an existing indoor growing facility to the operation. These are
properties which, but for the actions and inaction of the Secretary, would today be producing
grazing and other agriculture crop income to fund tribal law enforcement, health and food services
to its people. The Tribe has expended extremely limited private tribal funds on consultants, due
diligence, and other expenses related to hemp regulation and production under the Tribal Plan. It
was also led to seek out contracts with potential seed providers, purchasers, and transportation

19 
 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 20 of 30 PageID #: 20

services, and in so doing, has represented that the actual language of section 297B, 7 U.S.C.
§1369p, means what it says and that the Tribe would be lawfully producing hemp in 2019. Thus,
the Secretary’s arbitrary and illegal actions have damaged the Tribe’s business relationships with
companies it hopes to (and may in fact need to) do business with in the future. Each of these actions
was taken at the expense of the tribe’s ability to engage in commercial transactions, and at the
expense of its much needed law enforcement, health and other services, because the Tribe
genuinely believed that it was making a sound investment which would enhance the monies
available for these necessary services in a little over six months.
73.

Much of the Tribe’s land is held in trust by the United States government or has

been diminished through allotment, leaving the Tribe unable to fund its governmental programs
through property tax revenue. In addition, the Tribal Casino, which accounts for approximately
40% of tribal governmental revenue, has been under renovation for months. This will result in a
42% budget shortfall in 2020 alone and a decrease in tribal government funding available to
finance basic governmental services. Without a significant tax base, combined with the ongoing
casino renovations and federal government funding shortfalls, hemp cultivation is necessary to
help the Tribe generate the income required to better fund tribal programs and services. Tribal
programs that benefit the community living both on and off the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribal
Reservation include health services, law enforcement, social services, Tribal courts, and education.
74.

Services and programs operated primarily with Tribal funds include an elderly

meals program, a childcare program, streetlight maintenance and replacement (both on and off
reservation), burial assistance, food delivery, and a sex offender registry. Tribal funds also support
a free community and recreation center, on-going roads maintenance, a fitness center, and
information technology services including wireless internet services. All of these services benefit

20 
 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 21 of 30 PageID #: 21

and are open to the entire community regardless of tribal membership. Tribal funds also support a
sizable percentage of the funding going to the tribal court, law enforcement and unsupported
prescriptions and family medical and emergency assistance, and provide support to non-tribal local
governments.
75.

A delay in approval of the Tribal Plan and unlawfully withholding Tribal authority

curtails receipt of the Tribal revenue from hemp production at grave cost to Tribal members,
putting Tribal members’ health, safety, and welfare at risk.
76.

The Secretary’s position that the Tribe may not now regulate and produce hemp in

accordance with the AMA prohibits the Tribe from obtaining financing and engaging partners in
its hemp production program.
77.

The Secretary’s failure to act and its failure to acknowledge the Tribe’s hemp

production authority under the AMA restricts inherent Tribal regulatory authority within its own
territory, contrary to applicable federal law, including section 297B, 7 U.S.C. §1639p. It also
violates the federal government’s trust responsibility to Tribes and well-established federal policy
of promoting tribal self-sufficiency, self-determination, and economic development.
78.

The Secretary’s denial of the Tribe’s authority to operate under the AMA, in

violation of section 297B and Congressional intent, while still recognizing non-Indian cultivation
authority under the 2014 Farm Bill, singles out tribes and tribal business partners as hemp
producers, and prohibits the Tribe and other economically deprived tribes from entering the hemp
market during the 2019 growing season. This puts them at a distinct economic disadvantage to the
non-Indian growers in approximately 41 states who are today cultivating and preparing to market
their hemp products. As a result of the Secretary’s interpretation of the AMA and its delay and
inaction, state producers under the 2014 Farm Bill are able to access financing, enter production

21 
 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 22 of 30 PageID #: 22

and market hemp under the AMA, whereas tribal producers are not able to access financing or able
to produce or market hemp under the statute. The Secretary thereby denies the Tribe, its Tribal
citizens, and its potential partners the equal protection of the laws, in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment
79.

The Secretary’s failure to act and denial of the Tribe’s authority under the AMA

violates the Tribe’s rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by interfering with
its right to advertise a legal product. The Tribe’s inability to advertise available hemp from the
2019 growing season right now leaves it to volatile market condition in the fall, even if the USDA
approves its plan in the next few weeks.
80.

Because of the timing of the 2019 growing season, other than review in this Court,

no avenue for redress exists for the Tribe to undo the harm that has been done to date and will be
done in the future. Unless the Secretary’s failure to act and purported withholding of authority
under the AMA is reviewed and remedied, the Secretary will continue to assert unauthorized power
over the Tribe, will continue to deprive the Tribe of monies to support its police, health care, food
and other essential tribal services, and will continue to brand the Tribe’s hemp industry as
unlawful.
81.

The Secretary’s unreasonable delay in withholding action on the Tribal Plan past

the 60 days required and its attempt to withhold the Tribe’s authority under the AMA pending
approval of the Tribal Plan violates the plenary authority of Congress to regulate commerce with
Indian Tribes. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. the Secretary here unlawfully seeks to expand the role
and powers Congress delegated to the agency under the AMA over the Tribe’s authority over hemp
production on its territory.

22 
 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 23 of 30 PageID #: 23

82.

In the AMA, Congress intended to allow Indian tribes to exercise primary

regulatory authority over hemp production in tribal territory. AMA §297B, 7 U.S.C. §1639p. This
upholds unbroken federal common law stretching from the earliest Indian law decisions through
today recognizing exclusive tribal jurisdiction in tribal territory. Compare Worcester v. Georgia,
31 U.S. 515 (1832) (interpreting the Indian Commerce Clause as supporting the fact that Indian
nations are “distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their
authority is exclusive”), with Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 137 (1982)
(upholding the Indian Commerce Clause as “a shield protecting Indian tribes from state and local
interference” and recognizing that tribal self-government and territorial management has been “a
shared assumption of all three branches of federal government.”)
83.

The Secretary’s interpretation that section 297B requires that regulations be

finalized and published in the Federal Register and a section 297B plan approved prior to operating
in compliance with the AMA violates the 2018 Farm Bill, §10114, and leaves legally cultivated or
purchased tribal hemp plants and hemp products subject to interference by agents of state
government when those items are moving in interstate commerce to cultivation sites, product
manufacturers, and final sale.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of the Agricultural Marketing Act)
84.

The Tribe incorporates by reference and re-alleges the allegations contained in the

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
85.

The AMA embodies Congress’s careful balancing of issues of local authority,

public health and safety, and the substantial economic interests associated with hemp production.

23 
 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 24 of 30 PageID #: 24

86.

For tribes and states opting for primary regulatory authority under section 297B,

the AMA closely circumscribes the minimum requirements of section 297B plans and the review,
approval, and disapproval authority of the Secretary, and requires the Secretary to exercise that
limited authority and act on a section 297B plan not “later than 60 days after receipt.” AMA
§297B(b)(1), 7 U.S.C. §1639p(b)(1).
87.

The Secretary’s failure to approve or disapprove the Tribal Plan within 60 days of

receipt violates the AMA and otherwise exceeds the authority delegated to the Secretary.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of the Agricultural Marketing Act)
88.

The Tribe incorporates by reference and re-alleges the allegations contained in the

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
89.

The AMA does not preclude hemp production if a section 297B plan is not

approved if production accords with section 297C or other Federal laws (including regulations)
and is not otherwise prohibited by the state or tribe. AMA §297B(f), 7 U.S.C. §1639p(f).
90.

Congress did not delegate to the Secretary the power to deny state or tribal hemp

production authority, particularly if the state or tribal section 297B plan is not disapproved (within
60 days) or revoked.
91.

Here, the Tribe’s section 297B plan was not disapproved or revoked.

The

Secretary, however, through the combination of his inaction and erroneous construction of the
AMA, purports to deny the Tribe the authority recognized in the AMA to produce hemp in its
territory.
92.

The Secretary’s attempt to withhold the Tribe’s authority recognized in the AMA

is contrary to the AMA and otherwise unlawful.

24 
 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 25 of 30 PageID #: 25

93.

The Court is requested to declare that the Tribe now possesses authority to engage

in the production of hemp in its territory pursuant to the AMA.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act)
94.

The Tribe incorporates by reference and re-alleges the allegations contained in the

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
95.

The APA requires a court to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or

unreasonably delayed . . . .” 5 U.S.C. §706(1) (2019). It also requires a court to “hold unlawful
and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary and capricious, and
abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law; contrary to constitutional right,
power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short
of statutory right; [or] without observance of procedure required by law.” Id. at §706(2)(A)-(D).
96.

The Secretary has unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed action and has

acted not in accordance with the law, and without observance of procedure required by law in
taking no action on the Tribal Plan within 60 days of receipt pursuant to 7 U.S.C. §1639p(b)(1).
97.

The Secretary’s decision to hold the Tribal Plan past 60 days after receipt and until

regulations are in place is arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with the law, in excess of the
Secretary’s statutory jurisdiction, and short of statutory right. This action or failure to act violates
the 60-day deadline set by Congress.
98.

The Secretary’s violation of the mandatory deadline is not reasonably justified. The

Secretary’s violation of the 60-day deadline does not arise from a shortage of funds or resources
in the Department, or from a “first-in, first-out” policy in which the Tribal Plan is behind other
plans under the Secretary’s review.

25 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 26 of 30 PageID #: 26

99.

Congress set the criteria the Tribe’s Plan must meet and restricted the role of the

Secretary in approving or disapproving the Tribal Plan. Because Congress left the Secretary with
little discretion, if any, in making the decision to approve or reject section 297B plans, and because
federal standards already exist for agricultural activities on tribal lands, it is unlawful, unreasonable
and contrary to congressional intent for the Secretary to delay such decisions beyond the
congressional 60-day deadline in order to develop regulations to guide the Secretary’s limited
review.
100.

Because Congress did not delegate to the Secretary the authority to withhold tribal

or state hemp production authority while the Secretary implements the AMA and approves section
297B plans, the Secretary’s attempt to withhold the Tribe’s authority under the AMA pending
regulations and plan approval is unlawful, unreasonable and contrary to congressional intent.
101.

Although the 2018 Farm Bill sunsets the 2014 Farm Bill hemp production

authorities twelve months after promulgation of the section 297C plan, nothing in the 2018 Farm
Bill suggests any basis for the Secretary to delay his review of section 297B plans. To the contrary,
the intention of the 2018 Farm Bill was to acknowledge the primary regulatory authority of tribes
and states within 60 days after their submission of a plan that meets the statutory criteria, or allow
them to operate without approval provided they do so in accordance with either section 297C or
other Federal laws – including operating pursuant to Tribal laws regulating hemp production which
are more stringent than the hemp production subtitle of the AMA. The Secretary contravenes that
intent and deprives tribes of such authority by failing to timely review submitted plans and failing
to approve plans that satisfy the statutory criteria (as the Tribal Plan does), and by purporting to
withhold the Tribe’s hemp production authority under the AMA pending promulgation of
regulations and approval of the Tribal Plan.

26 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 27 of 30 PageID #: 27

102.

The Secretary acted arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to apply the standards set

out by Congress in section 297B(a)(2)(A), 7 U.S.C. §1639p(a)(2)(A), to the Tribal Plan. Congress
spelled out specific criteria by which tribal plans must be evaluated, which the Tribe adhered to in
drafting its Tribal Plan. The Secretary arbitrarily and capriciously failed to measure the Tribal Plan
against the statutory criteria as required by law, a task which requires no agency preparation other
than a copy of the Congressionally mandated requirements, a copy of the Tribal Plan, and a check
list where the USDA staff can mark included or not included when reporting his or her findings to
the Secretary.
103.

The Secretary’s failure to act on the Tribe’s plan, and purporting to withhold the

Tribe’s authority under the AMA, is causing and will continue to cause irreparable harm to the
Tribe as it deprives the Tribe of the ability to adequately fund government functions and enhance
the Tribal programs and services necessary for the health, safety and welfare of Tribal citizens,
and infringes upon rights guaranteed by the Constitution and federal law, as alleged herein.
104.

The Secretary should be ordered to issue a decision on the Tribal Plan as consistent

with the AMA, section 297B, 7 U.S.C. §1639p(a)(2)(A).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, and based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court
grant the following relief:
a.

Declare that the Secretary’s failure to act on the Tribal Plan within 60 days of
receipt violates controlling federal law, including the Agricultural Marketing Act
and the Administrative Procedure Act;

b.

Declare that the Secretary’s withholding of authority of the Tribe under the AMA

27 

 Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 28 of 30 PageID #: 28

pending regulatory promulgation and approval of the Tribal Plan violates
controlling federal law, including the Agricultural Marketing Act and the
Administrative Procedure Act;
c.

Temporarily and permanently enjoin the Secretary from interfering with the
Tribe’s primary regulatory authority in its territory by requiring the Secretary to
withdraw his statements that such authority is contingent on regulatory
promulgation and plan approval;

d.

Enter a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary, within 7 days from the date of
the Court’s order, to approve the Tribe’s plan as meeting the minimum statutory
requirements;

e.

Any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of May, 2019,

By: /s/Seth Pearman

.

Seth Pearman
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe
603 West Broad Avenue
Flandreau, South Dakota 57028
Telephone: (605) 997-3891
Facsimile: (605) 997-5041
spearman@fsst.org
Patricia A. Marks, Pro hac vice pending
Ben Fenner, Pro hac vice pending
Fredericks Peebles & Patterson LLP
401 9th St NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 450-4887
Facsimile: (202) 450-5106
bfenner@ndnlaw.com
pmarks@ndnlaw.com
28 

 Case Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 29 of 30 PageID 29

John M. Peebles, Pro hac vice pending
Tim Hennessy, Pro hac vice pending
Fredericks Peebles Patterson LLP
2020 Street, Suite 250

Sacramento, California 95811
Telephone: (916) 441?2700

Facsimile: (916) 441?2067
jpeebles@ndnlaw.com
thennessy@ndnlaw.com

VERIFICATION

1, Anthony Reider, President of the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe Executive Committee,
the elected governing body of the plaintiff landreau Santee Sioux Tribe, hereby verify and
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that I have read the
foregoing Veri?ed Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and know the contents
thereof, and that the matters contained in the Veri?ed Complaint are true to my knowledge.

I hereby verify and declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and

correct. Executed on May 2019, at Flandreau, South Dakota.


1 
Anthony Reider
Tribal President

29

Case 4:19-cv-04094-KES Document 1 Filed 05/23/19 Page 30 of 30 PageID #: 30
19-4094

CIVIL COVER SHEET

JS 44 (Rev. 02/19)

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and 1he infonnation contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service or pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by locsl rules of court. This fonn. approved by the JudicialConference of the UnitedStates inSeptember 197 , is required for· the use of theClerk ofCourt for the
purpose ofinitiating the civil docket sheet. (SEJ-.' INS1'RUr7JONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

DEFENDANTS

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

United States Dept. of Agriculture and Hon. Sonny Perdue (in his
official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture)

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe
Moody County

(b) County ofResidence ofFirst Listed Plaintiff

County ofResidence ofFirst Listed Defendant

(IN U.S. PIA/NT/FF CASES ONLY)

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PIAINTIFF CASES)

NOTE:

(C)

Attorneys(Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Attorneys (If Known)

Fredericks Peebles & Patterson LLP
401 9th Street, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 450-4887

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL pARTIES (Place an "X'' in One Box for Plaintiff

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only)
0 l

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

0 3

(For Diversity Cases Only)

Federal Question

(US. Government Nol a Party)

0 4 Diversity

� 2 U.S. Government
Defendant

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)

IV NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" ,n One Box 011/y)

I
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

I

0
0
0
0
0
0

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery ofOverpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
l 51 Medicare Act
152 Recovery ofDefaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery ofOverpayment
ofVeteran's Benefits
160 Stockholders' Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
REAT..PROPF.RTY

210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

PERSONAL INJURY

0 3 IO Airplane
0 3 15 Airplane Product
Liability
0 320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
0 330 Federal Employers'
Liability
0 340 Marine
0 345 Marine Product
Liability
0 350 Motor Vehicle
0 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
0 360 Other Personal
Injury
0 362 Personal Injury ·
Medical Malpractice
0
0
0
0

CIVIL RIGHTS.

440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
0 448 Education

V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only)
i:i( I

Original
Proceeding

D 2 Removed from
StateCourt

PERSONAL INJURY

0 365 Personal Injury Product Liability
0 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
0 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability

PERSONAL PROPERTY

0 370 Other Fraud
0 371 Truth in Lending
0 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
0 385 Property Damage
Product Liability

l?RTSON ER. l!El'JTFIEINS
Habeas Corpus:

0 463 Alien Detainee
0 5 IO Motions to Vacate
Sentence
0 530 General
0 535 Death Penalty
0
0
0
0

Citizen ofThis State

PTF
O l

DEF
O l

Citizen ofAnother State

0 2

0

2

Citizen or Subject ofa
l'orci n Cou111rv

0 3

0

3

Other:

540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

D 3 Remanded from
AppellateCourt

0 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881
0 690 Other

and One Box for Defendant)

PTF
O 4

DEF
0 4

Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State

0 5

0 5

Foreign Nation

0 6

0 6

Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business In This State

Click here for : Nntun: orSu11 Code Dcscriotions.

�• •RFF.ITl1JRFJPF.N/dl'IW

rfORTS

C0N!JlRACT

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATlON OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

B"ANKRL1PT€V

0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
0 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
Pu•, p�uTv RlC,H'l'S

0 820 Copyrights
0 830 Patent
0 835 Patent - Abbreviated
New Drug Application
0 840 Trademark

�..o•K,,M

0 710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
0 720 Labor/Management
Relations
0 740 Railway Labor Act
0 751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
0 790 Other Labor Litigation
0 791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

0
0
0
0
0

'lloAl·R IA. -... ••

,u

..

861 HIA (1395ft)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS

0 870 Taxes (U,S, Plaintiff
or Defendant)
0 871 IRS-Third Party
26 USC 7609

IMMIGRATION

0 462 Naturalization Application
0 465 Other Immigration
Actions

D 4 Reinstated or
Reopened

D 5 Transferred from
Another District
(.,pcd �

O'IMER ,,._ ,\fl1U'ITF.S

0 375 False Claims Act
0 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
0 400 State Reapportionment
0 410 Antitrust
0 430 Banks and Banking
0 450 Commerce
0 460 Deportation
0 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
0 480 Consumer Credit
0 485 Telephone Consumer
Protection Act
0 490 Cable/Sat TV
0 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
0 890 Other Statutory Actions
0 891 Agricultural Acts
0 893 Environmental Matters
0 895 Freedom oflnformation
Act
0 896 Arbitration
� 899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
0 950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

D 6 Multidistrict
Litigation Transfer

Cite the US.CivilStatute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

D 8 Multidistrict
Litigation Direct File

7 U.S.C. 1639

-

- - - - - _ _ _. _ _ - _ _ ------------- ----------------- ---VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 1-B- ri -ef- de
scription of ca us e :

unlawful withholding of agency action

VII. REQUESTED IN
0 CHECK IFTHIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDERRULE 23,F.KCv.P
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See ins/rue/ions).'
IF ANY
JUDGE
SIGNAT

DATE

05/23/2019

DEMAND$

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND:

DOCKET NUMBER

O
�� -._.l

F'OR OFFI E SE ONLY
RECEIPT#

AMOUNT

APPL YING IFP

JUDGE

I

MAG.JUDGE

D Yes

�No