The Act authorizes the Court to “order appropriate relief including money damages, injunctive relief ..., or mandamus” upon finding a violation of the Act or its regulations. 25 U.S.C. § 450m~l(a). Here, it is clear that negotiations between the parties broke down in the weeks prior to Maniilaq’s lease proposal. See Pl.’s Opp’n & Reply [ECF No. 18] at 27-28; Gov’t’s Reply [ECF No. 19] at 4. Thus, the Court thinks it appropriate to compel the parties to discuss, in a manner consistent with this opinion, the proper amount of compensation for the Kivalina clinic lease for the period from February 1, 2015, to September 30, 2015, and how the amount of lease compensation shall be determined in subsequent years. See Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Burwell, 70 F.Supp.3d 534, 545 (D.D.C.2014) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION For the reasons set out above, the
holding that the government interest in preventing crime is compelling holding conflict of interest on the part of a government official who participated in contract negotiations in violation of federal law rendered contract unenforceable holding that the secretary misapplied a statutory declination ground but compelling further negotiations in lieu of adding the improperly declined proposal to the contract recognizing the compelling interest in highway safety holding that an order compelling arbitration in an independent proceeding is appealable as a final order because in that context the order compelling arbitration resolves the sole issue before the court