HE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
CIRCUIT 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., 
Plaiiiti ffs- App ellees , 
NO. 03-5262 V. 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 GALE A. NORTON, 
Secretary of the Interior, et al., 
Defendants- Appellants. 
1 
1 
i 
1 
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SCHEDULING MOTION 
Plaintiffs have moved for expedition in Cobell v. Norton, No. 03-53 14. As explained in 
our response to that motion, while the government stands ready to proceed on an expedited 
schedule, the passage of Pub. L. No. 108-108 makes it unclear whether expedition is, in fact, 
appropriate. We further urged that if the Court determines to expedite No. 03-53 14, it should 
also expedite the present appeal. Conversely, we suggested that if the Court determines that 
expedition in No. 03-53 14 would be inappropriate, it should defer scheduling this appeal as well. 
The basis for this request is simple and is not disputed by plaintiffs in their opposition. The 
internet injunction at issue in this case and the structural injunction at issue in No. 03-53 14 arise 
out of the same proceedings and, in the government'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 reasoil 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. 
Respectfidly submitted, 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
ROSCOE C. HOWARD, JR. 
United States Attorney 
ROBERT E. KOPP 
MARK B. STERN 
THOMAS M. BONDY 
CHARLES W. SCARBOROUGH f 
ALISAB.KLEIN 
(202) 514-5089 
' Attorneys, Appellate Staff 
Civil Division, Room 9 108 
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 5941 7 
A- 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that on this 20th day of February, 2004, I am causing copies of the 
foregoing reply 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. KLEW