IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 
Appellees, No. 03-5262 and 
No. 03-5314 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., )
)
) 
v. 
GALE A. NORTON, as Secretary of 
the Interior, et al, 
)
)
)
) 
Appellants )
))
___________________________________) 
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED APPEALS 
Appellants, the Secretary of the Interior, et al., hereby 
move to consolidate the two above-captioned appeals, which arise 
from the same district court case and involve related issues. No 
briefing schedule has yet been issued in either matter, and we 
respectfully ask that a single briefing and argument schedule 
govern the matter as consolidated. 
1. The district court case underlying both appeals arises 
out of claims for an accounting of funds held in trust for the 
benefit of individual Indians. The case has previously been 
before this Court in Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128 (D.C. Cir. 
2003), and Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 
2. At issue in No. 03-5262 is a preliminary injunction 
requiring the Department of Interior to disconnect from the 
Internet all Information Technology Systems that house or access 
Individual Indian Trust Data. The ruling did not require 
immediate disconnection, however, and it provided that the court 
would not require disconnection if the government certifies to
the court's satisfaction that a system is essential for the 
protection against fires or threats to life or property, or that 
a system either (a) does not house or access Individual Indian 
Trust Data, or (b) is secure from Internet access by unauthorized 
users.
The district court entered this preliminary injunction on 
July 28, 2003. The court has not yet evaluated the 
certifications submitted by the government pursuant to the 
preliminary injunction or ordered the Department of Interior to 
disconnect systems from the Internet. We have not to this point 
sought a stay of the preliminary injunction order. 
3. At issue in No. 03-5314 is a sweeping "structural 
injunction" issued in the same case on September 25, 2003. The 
18-page structural injunction was accompanied by a 272-page 
opinion addressing historical accounting and a 79-page opinion 
addressing trust reform generally. The injunction precludes 
implementation of the historical accounting plan developed by the 
Department of Interior, and asserts judicial control over 
virtually all aspects of the management of Individual Indian 
Money accounts. On November 10, 2003, we moved to stay the 
September 25 order pending appeal; on November 12, 2003, this 
Court granted an administrative stay of the structural injunction 
pending further order of the Court. 
-2-
4. The two appeals not only arise from the same proceeding 
but involve closely related issues. In the government's view, 
the two injunctions reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the 
nature of the claims before the district court and the court's 
authority to exercise control over executive branch functions. 
Both appeals will also require the Court to consider the impact 
of legislation recently signed by the President that bears 
directly on the duties at issue in this case. See FY 2004 
Department of Interior Appropriations Act, HR 2691 (signed Nov. 
10, 2003). That legislation is discussed in some detail in the 
motion for a stay filed in No. 03-5314. Separate briefing of the 
two appeals would involve duplicative filings and would waste the 
resources of the parties and the Court. 
-3-
NOVEMBER 2003 
For the foregoing reasons, the appeals in No. 03-5262 and 
No. 03-5314 should be consolidated. 
General 
ROSCOE C. HOWARD, JR. 
United States Attorney 
CONCLUSION 
Respectfully submitted, 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
GREGORY G. KATSAS 
Deputy Assistant Attorney 
ROBERT E. KOPP 
MARK B. STERN 
THOMAS M. BONDY 
CHARLES SCARBOROUGH 
ALISA B. KLEIN 
(202) 514-5089 
Attorneys, Appellate Staff 
Civil Division, Room 9108 
Department of Justice 
601 D Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20530 
-4-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that on this 13th day of November, 2003, I 
caused copies of the foregoing motion to be sent to the Court and 
to the following by hand delivery: 
The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth 
United States District Court 
United States Courthouse 
Third and Constitution Ave., N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20001 
Keith M. Harper 
Native American Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 
(202) 785-4166 
and to the following by federal express, overnight mail: 
Elliott H. Levitas 
Law Office of Elliott H. Levitas 
1100 Peachtree Street 
Suite 2800 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 
(404) 815-6450 
and to the following by regular, first class mail: 
Dennis Marc Gingold 
Law Office of Dennis Marc Gingold 
607 14th Street, N.W., Box 6 
Washington, D.C. 20005
Earl Old Person (pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
________________________ 
THOMAS M. BONDY