TES COURT OF APPEALS 
OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., 
Plaintiffs-Appellees, 
V. NO. 03-5314 
GALE A. NORTON, 
Secretary of the Interior, et al., 
Defendants-Appellants. 
REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE 
REGARDING EXPANSION OF PAGE LIMITS 
Our previous filing explained that the government stands ready to proceed on an 
expedited schedule but also explained that the passage of Pub. L. No. 108-1 08 makes it unclear 
whether expedition is, in fact, appropriate. We asked that the Court modify plaintiffs’ proposed 
briefing schedule and enlarge the word limits of the parties’ briefs if the Court orders plenary 
briefing on all issues presented by the structural injunction at the time of its issuance as well as 
its validity under Pub. L. No. 108-108. 
Plaintiffs do not, for the most part, oppose the modification and enlargement. They ask 
that they receive forty days in which to file their responsive brief, and the government does not 
oppose that request if the Court determines that expedition should be granted. Plaintiffs also ask 
that the government’s reply brief be limited to 10,000 words rather than 12,000 words as we 
proposed. Although the government believes that its request is appropriate in light of the 
extraordinary nature of this case, we do not, at this point, insist on resolving a dispute that may 
be avoided if the Court denies the requested expedition or if plaintiffs’ responsive brief does not, 
in fact, require a reply brief of more than 10,000 words. We therefore do not oppose the 
modification proposed by plaintiffs but note that it may be necessary to seek a modest additional 
expansion of word limits after reviewing plaintiffs’ responsive brief. Plaintiffs also oppose our suggestion that this appeal should, if possible, be placed on the 
same schedule as Cobell v. Norton, No. 03-5262. As discussed, the government has not 
advocated expedition of this appeal. However, if expedition is granted, it would be altogether 
appropriate to expedite No. 03-5262 as well. The internet injunction at issue in No. 03-5262 and 
the structural injunction at issue in this appeal arise out of the same proceedings and, in the 
goveimnent’s view, are premised on the same mistaken understanding of governing law and the 
scope of the court’s jurisdiction. Indeed, as plaintiffs do not dispute, the internet injunction 
provisions could have been included among the disparate requirements of the structural 
injunction. 
Plaintiffs offer no reason whatsoever why the two appeals should not be placed on the 
same schedule if practicable. Instead, they urge that the government’s scheduling proposal 
is“nothing more than a backdoor attempt” to circumvent the Court’s decision that the two 
appeals should not be consolidated. Appellees’ Response at 2. 
Plaintiffs are mistaken. Consolidated appeals are briefed and argued as a single appeal. 
The government has not renewed its request that the appeals be heard in this manner. Indeed, as 
the government noted in its previous filings, submissions relating to the internet injunction are 
pending before the district court, and their disposition may necessitate expedition even if the 
Court determines that expedition of the structural injunction appeal is inappropriate in light of 
the recently enacted legislation. At the present time, however, there is every reason to set these 
two very closely related appeals on a similar schedule if practicable. Thus, we ask that the Court 
expedite briefing of No. 03-5262 if it expedites this appeal, and that it defer scheduling of No. 
03-5262 if it determines that expedition of this appeal is not appropriate. 
-2- Respectfully submitted, 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
ROSCOE C. HOWARD, JR. 
United States Attorney 
ROBERT E. KOPP 
MARKB. STERN 
THOMAS M. BONDY 
CHARLES W. SCARBOROUGH 
ALISA B. KLEIN 
Lo”. 9 
fb-- (202) 5 14-5089 
Attorneys, Appellate Staff 
Civil Division, Room 9108 
Department of Justice 
601 D Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20530 
FEBRUARY 2004 Elliott H. Levitas 
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP 
607 14th Street, NW 
Suite 900 
Washington, D.C. 20005-2018 
Phone: 202-508-5800 
Fax: 202-508-5858 
(202) 785-4166 
Earl Old Person (pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that on this 20th day of February, 2004, I am causing copies of the 
foregoing resply to be sent to the Court by hand delivery and to be served on the following 
counsel by first class mail and by fax: 
I am also causing copies to be served on the following by first class mail: 
Keith M. Harper 
Native American Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 
Dennis Marc Gingold 
Law Office of Dennis Marc Gingold 
607 14th Street, N.W., Box 6 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
./+- 
ALISA B. KLEIN