I couldn’t really do it in 800 words, but my ICT editorial necessarily left out several points I still want to make about Carcieri and its impact. Here is the first. Others will follow.
The Carcieri fix will not be an easy sell. Tribal interests have relatively recently “fixed” a Supreme Court decision by asking Congress for help — the so-called Duro fix. But consider how many other “fixes” never got off the ground: (1) Oliphant Fix (numerous incarnations); (2) Seminole Tribe Fix; and (3) Hicks Fix.
Why did the Duro Fix get through while the others did not? First, the only constituency that would have opposed the Duro Fix was nonmember Indians, the most famous (later on) being Russell Means, who traveled from city to city arguing against tribal criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians after he got arrested at Navajo. Second, state and local governments had some general interest in limiting tribal criminal jurisdiction (the same as they do with jurisdiction over non-Indians) but the interest is just that — general. And a bit disingenous in a lot of places in the country.
A Carcieri Fix might be the most politicized of all the “fixes.” States and tribal gaming competitors will bring up all sorts of things they’d like to see “fixed” as well — limits on off-reservation gaming, reservation shopping, maybe even limits on types of games, numbers of slots. Maybe states will seek to codify revenue sharing, and codify some of the stuff the NIGC was thinking of doing with Class II bingo. And local units of government might want to do something about property taxes and other local impacts of Indian gaming.
Tribes unaffected by the Carcieri ruling might want to do something about the Artman Guidance (the 30 mile rule on off-reservation gaming).
In short, there might not be a simple Carcieri Fix. There should be — something that would just reverse what the Supreme Court did and put the playing field back where it was. But just as the Court did in Seminole Tribe, they handed traditional opponents to tribal sovereignty yet another trump card. As if they needed any more….
Turtle Talk 
Instead of asking Congress for a fix, could tribes ask Salazar for one? Notwithstanding the decision in Carcieri, the Secretary could locate authority under 25 C.F.R. s 83.12 to acquire land in trust for acknowledged tribes like the Narragansett Tribe and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, who are “entitled to the privileges and immunities available to other federally recognized historic tribes.”
25 C.F.R. 83.12 was promulgated through the Secretary’s delegated authority in 25 U.S.C 2 & 9. In Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 231 (1974), the Court identifies that 25 U.S.C. 2 & 9 grant “explicit” power to the Secretary and the BIA “to fill any gap left…by Congress.” Coincidentally, this very passage was quoted by Justice Stevens when he announced the Chevron Doctrine! When this passage from Morton v. Ruiz was quoted in Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U. S. at 843, the Court acknowledged that 25 U.S.C. 2 & 9 are pure examples of an explicit delegation to an agency of the power to promulgate “legislative regulations”! Therefore, 25 C.F.R. s 83.12 is a valid regulation by which the Secretary can acquire land in trust for acknowledged tribes the same as any tribe recognized before 1934.
The Court’s interpretation of 25 U.S.C 479 in Carcieri cannot stop the Secretary from identifying all land taken into trust on behalf of acknowledged tribes as validly acquired under 25 U.S.C. 2 & 9! Hey, if the SEC got two bites at the apple in Chenery… why can’t the Secretary in this case?