Category Archives: casinos
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
Victory for Big Lagoon Rancheria: Restoring Certainty for Challenging Lands into Trust after 1934
The Big Lagoon Rancheria had a major victory this month after an en banc decision granted Big Lagoon the authority to pursue the construction of a casino on tribal land in trust. In 1994, the United States accepted into trust an 11-acre parcel of land on which the Tribe sought to build a casino. The Indian Gaming Regulation Act (IGRA) allows tribes to operate class III gaming only after entering into a tribal gaming compact with the state. When negotiations stalled, Big Lagoon brought suit against California, and in 2007 the district court ordered the parties to come to an agreement after finding that the state had not negotiated in good faith.
California appealed, and pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Carcieri (2009), the Ninth Circuit found that because Big Lagoon was not federally recognized in 1934, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) lacked authority under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) to accept land into trust for Big Lagoon. The three-judge panel concluded that since the 11-acre parcel was not tribal land, Big Lagoon lacked standing to compel California to negotiate.
However, the Ninth Circuit’s recent en banc panel vacated the previous decision and reinstated the district court’s holding that state violated IGRA by failing to negotiate in good faith. If California had wanted to contest the original acceptance of the parcel, the state would have had to do so under the Administrative Procedure Act within the six-year statute of limitations. The en banc panel’s ruling helps restore some certainty to tribes recognized after 1934 by preventing collateral attacks on tribal land in trust beyond the statute of limitations.
Native Law Policy 