R.D. Offutt Farms Co. v. White Earth Division of Natural Resources

Background

White Earth Nation is a federally recognized Indian tribe that exercises sovereign authority over the White Earth Reservation in northwestern Minnesota. The White Earth Division of Natural Resources (WEDNR) is an environmental agency of the Nation. R.D. Offutt Farms Co. operates several high-capacity wells within and near the reservation boundaries and had operated those wells under permits issued by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

In May 2023, the White Earth Reservation Business Committee enacted the Water Protection Ordinance. It required permits from WEDNR for new and existing high-capacity wells and pumps located on reservation land or within a five-mile area surrounding the reservation. Existing sources were given one year to submit permit applications. The ordinance included requirements concerning the effect of water use on groundwater available to current users.

In May 2024, R.D. Offutt Farms filed this pre-enforcement action seeking a declaration that WEDNR and its officials lacked authority to regulate water use on the company’s lands within and near the reservation. At the time, the company had not applied for a permit, and WEDNR had not taken enforcement action against the company or any other existing source.

About six weeks after the complaint was filed, the White Earth Reservation Business Committee suspended the permitting requirement for existing sources while further ecological analysis was conducted with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. In August 2024, it amended the ordinance to suspend all regulations concerning existing sources indefinitely and to require at least one year’s notice before any permitting requirement for existing sources could be implemented.

Defendants’ motion

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction—the power to hear the dispute. They argued that tribal sovereign immunity barred the action and that the amended ordinance made the case moot, meaning that no live dispute remained for the court to decide.

R.D. Offutt Farms argued that exceptions to tribal sovereign immunity and mootness applied under the circumstances. The court treated the motion as a factual challenge to jurisdiction and considered material outside the pleadings. It stated that R.D. Offutt Farms, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, had the burden of proving the jurisdictional facts.

Tribal sovereign immunity

The court held that WEDNR, as an agency of the Nation, shared the Nation’s tribal sovereign immunity. It also held that Dustin Roy and the John Doe defendants were protected by that immunity because they were sued in their official capacities as tribal government officials.

The court considered the exception that can allow suits against government officials seeking declaratory or injunctive relief for an ongoing violation of federal law. It concluded that the exception did not apply here. Neither Roy nor any other WEDNR officer had enforced or threatened to enforce the challenged provisions. Roy stated that WEDNR had not taken steps to implement the ordinance against R.D. Offutt Farms or any other existing source and had no current intent or ability to take enforcement action against existing sources. The amended ordinance also removed WEDNR’s current enforcement authority and required additional official action and one year’s notice before enforcement could resume.

Because the officials were not engaged in an ongoing violation of federal law, the court concluded that the exception to tribal sovereign immunity did not apply. The court therefore held that the defendants were protected from suit by tribal sovereign immunity.

Mootness

The court separately held that the declaratory judgment claim was moot. It explained that a challenge to a law generally becomes moot when the law is repealed or expires, unless there is a high likelihood that it will be reenacted or there is a history of enforcement.

The court found no such circumstances. The ordinance had never been enforced against R.D. Offutt Farms or other existing sources. The suspension was not time-limited and did not automatically end. The defendants had not clearly indicated that they intended to reenact the challenged provisions. Any future implementation would require a new official act by the White Earth Reservation Business Committee and at least one year’s notice.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed R.D. Offutt Farms Co.’s complaint without prejudice. The classification is procedural because the court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on tribal sovereign immunity and mootness rather than deciding whether the defendants actually had authority to regulate the company’s water use.