Category Archives: carcieri

 House Passes Clean Carcieri Fix 

It has been a long road for Tribes like the Narragansett Indian Tribe that faced the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Salazar v. Carcieri in 2009 that ruled tribes not under federal jurisdiction at the time the Indian Reorganization Act was enacted in 1934 could not take land into trust.  This ended for the tribe the dream of a housing project on tribal land.  Today the project stands in ruins.  On Wednesday this week, the House of
Representatives passed a clean Carcieri Fix, reinforcing the authority of the Department of the Interior to take lands into trust for all tribes.  Now, the bill H.R. 375 goes to the Senate.  The House action comes after 10 years of advocating by Tribes to correct the decision that went against long standing federal policy.
It is a big step to righting a wrong and correcting an inequity against tribes that were blocked from taking their land into trust.  After the Supreme Court decision, many tribes have spent precious resources defending their homeland, and threats to projects they developed on their land.

Carcieri Fix Legislation Scheduled for House Floor May 8, 2019

On May 8, 2019, the House is scheduled to voteon H.R. 375, a bill to amend the Act of June 18, 1934 (Indian Reorganization Act), to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for all tribal nations. Introduced by Representative Tom Cole (R-OK) with bi-partisan support, the bill presents a “clean fix” to the conflict caused by the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Carcieri v. Salazar, which held that the Secretary of the Interior lacks authority to take land into trust under Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act for tribal nations that were not under federal jurisdiction in 1934. For a decade, tribal nations have called for a clean fix to the costly turmoil caused by this misguided decision.
H.R. 375 would (1) restore the Secretary’s IRA authority to take land into trust for all federally recognized tribal nations; and (2) reaffirm existing Indian trust lands.

Bethany C. Sullivan & Jennifer L. Turner on Carcieri

I agree Enough is Enough …good article

Turtle Talk

Bethany C. Sullivan and Jennifer L. Turner have published “Enough Is Enough: Ten Years of Carcieri v. Salazar” in the Public Land & Resources Law Review. Here is the abstract:

Ten years ago, the United States Supreme Court issued its watershed decision in Carcieri v. Salazar, landing a gut punch to Indian country. Through that decision, the Supreme Court upended decades of Department of the Interior regulations, policy, and practice related to the eligibility of all federally recognized tribes for the restoration of tribal homelands through the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934. The Court held that tribes must demonstrate that they were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934 to qualify for land into trust under the first definition of “Indian” in the IRA. Carcieri has impacted all tribes by upending the land-into-trust process and requiring tribes (and Interior) to spend scant resources to establish statutory authority for trust land acquisitions, a burdensome task that had previously been straight forward…

View original post 161 more words

Land-in-Trust challenge against Ione Band stopped in Ninth Circuit; U.S. Supreme Court Carcieri Ruling Distinguished.

On Oct. 6, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of California’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department of Interior (DOI). In 2005, the County of Amador challenged the 2012 Record of Decision placing land into trust and approving casino development for the Ione Band of Miwok Indians. Specifically, the challenge focused on the determination that the Tribe was under federal jurisdiction, per the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), and was a restored tribe receiving restored lands under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).

The Ninth Circuit, interpreting Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009), decided that a tribe must have interacted with the federal government prior to 1934 and must be officially recognized at the time of the trust application submission. Land purchase negotiations over the course of the late 19th and early 20th centuries involved Congress and the Department in Ione Band affairs.

The appellate court understood this to mean that the Tribe had been under federal jurisdiction and that the intent of the IRA allowed recognition to occur at any point as long as federal jurisdiction was established in 1934 or earlier. The Ninth Circuit examined the legislative history of the IRA, in addition to contemporaneous administrative findings, and found that Congress intended the Act to apply to tribes recognized after 1934.

DOI’s interpretation of “under federal jurisdiction” separated the meaning of “recognized” from the phrase. The Department considered federal jurisdiction to mean an action or series of actions that establishes or reflects Federal obligations, authority, and duties for or to a tribe. The Court accepted this interpretation, affirmed the district court, and also ruled that the IGRA “restored tribe” exception was met.

In a related case, No Casino in Plymouth v. Zinke, the appellate circuit remanded to the Eastern District of California with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and organizational standing. The plaintiffs had not submitted specific facts showing that its members would have individual standing and its evidence was not allowed for a motion of summary judgment. Read case 

Tribal Law Updates

Updates to the Tribal Court Clearinghouse

Turtle Talk

The leading blog on legal issues in Indian Country

Native Law Policy

Washington politics Updates

Legal Blog Watch

Washington politics Updates

Washington politics Updates

theo-james.org

Washington politics Updates

Native American Law Focus

Washington politics Updates