Shinnecock Gaming and Federal Recognition News

From the NYTs:

The Shinnecock Indian Nation cleared a major hurdle toward its goal of federal recognition on Tuesday when it entered into a settlement with the Interior Department that requires a preliminary ruling on its tribal status by the end of the year.

Shinnecock leaders would like to run the first casino in downstate New York, and wrote to Gov. David A. Paterson on Tuesday, citing the settlement as an impetus to begin talks with the state on a range of issues.

After a court fight of more than 30 years, the Shinnecocks believe that federal recognition is in their grasp; they have long been recognized by the state, and a federal judge described them as a sovereign tribe in a 2005 ruling. The settlement gives the federal government until Dec. 15 to make a preliminary ruling on the Shinnecocks’ status.

The implications for New York could be considerable.

Continue reading

Is There a Money Claim Against the US Post-Carcieri?

I see now that the Dept. of Interior is (un)officially segregating Indian tribes for purposes of trust acquisitions (see email reported on Indianz), shutting down (apparently) some trust applications and allowing others to proceed, that the first impacts of Carcieri have reached Indian Country, as expected.

Maybe it’s worth revisiting what the Supreme Court did in Carcieri from a slightly different point of view. Arguably, a money claim against the United States for failure to properly recognize certain Indian tribes in 1934 has now accrued.

Consider. The Court has effectively created classes of Indian tribes, as seemingly established by the email:

Continue reading

ICT Editorial on Carcieri

From ICT:

Decision’s in. ‘Now’ begins work to fix Carcieri

The Supreme Court’s Feb. 24 decision in Carcieri v. Salazar is a significant defeat for the Narragansett Tribe, and perhaps for hundreds of other Indian tribes not federally recognized in 1934. Carcieri seemingly overturns the Department of Interior’s 70-year-plus practice of taking land into trust for Indian tribes federally recognized after 1934. But while the decision will be disruptive and expensive for Indian tribes affected, it might not be utterly devastating.

Carcieri held that the secretary has no authority to take land into trust for the Narragansetts because they are not an eligible Indian tribe as defined by the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. Only tribes that meet the definition of “Indian tribe” under the IRA are eligible for the fee to trust benefit; in other words, according to the court, tribes that were “under federal jurisdiction” on June 1, 1934. The secretary of the interior did not recognize the Narragansett Tribe as an Indian tribe at that time, and so the court held that the secretary may not take land into trust for the tribe under the IRA. The court’s cramped reading of “now” is the worst kind of judicial formalism, like that recently critiqued by Professor Alex Skibine in the American Indian Law Review.

It is important to parse out exactly which tribes – and which land parcels – are affected by this decision. First, Indian lands already in trust with the secretary of the interior are safe, because the United States already owns the land and is immune from a suit seeking to reverse a fee to trust acquisition. That means tribes operating business enterprises on trust land will be protected by the federal government’s immunity. Second, Indian tribes such as the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians with special statutes authorizing the secretary to take land into trust for them, usually as a result of a congressional recognition act or land claims settlement act, also are exempted.

The Supreme Court’s Feb. 24 decision in Carcieri v. Salazar is a significant defeat for the Narragansett Tribe, and perhaps for hundreds of other Indian tribes not federally recognized in 1934.

Interestingly, the final paragraph in Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion – a major litigation-starter – appears to assume that the Carcieri case is limited to its facts, and therefore only applies to the Narragansett Tribe. The concurring opinions from Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter, as well as Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissent, suggest that numerous other tribes that can demonstrate that they were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934, even if “the Department did not know it at the time,” in Breyer’s words. The concurring and dissenting justices named several tribes that fit into this category, including the Stillaguamish Tribe, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, and the Mole Lake Tribe. In short, according to Justice Breyer, a tribe that could show it was party to a treaty with the United States, the beneficiary of a pre-1934 congressional appropriation, or enrollment with the Indian Office as of 1934. The Narragansett Tribe, according to the court, was under the jurisdiction of Rhode Island in 1934, not the Department of the Interior, and so they are not eligible.

These exceptions to the general Carcieri rule mean that Indian tribes in the twilight of the concurring opinions may be engaged in expensive litigation to prove that they were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934. Such litigation may require the heavy expenditure of funds for expert witnesses, forcing some tribes to undergo the strange and humiliating process of earning a kind of federal recognition all over again. In the coming weeks, the Obama administration should take the lead in defining what “under federal jurisdiction” means to blunt the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Obama administration should take the lead in defining what “under federal jurisdiction” means to blunt the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Regardless, now is the time for Indian country to test the waters in Washington D.C., to see if the Obama administration is serious about change and to press the Democratic-controlled Congress for a Carcieri “fix.” It might not take much legislation, just a quick rewording of the definition of Indian tribe in the IRA to remove the word “now.” The administration and Congress may be sympathetic, given that the Roberts Court seems to go out of its way to punish Indian tribes. A Carcieri “fix” pitched as merely reversing a bad Supreme Court decision would not work a major change on the federal-tribal-state relationship because it would merely be restoring the pre-Carcieri state of affairs that had existed for over seven decades.

For the Narragansett Tribe, this decision is yet another slap in the face to a tribe that has done nothing wrong but what it can to survive. For six justices, the Narragansetts did not pass the test of “federal jurisdiction,” a test that no one could have known in 1934 they would have been required to pass. Nothing could be more arbitrary and capricious.

Matthew L.M. Fletcher is associate professor at the Michigan State University College of Law and director of the Northern Plains Indian Law Center. He is an enrolled citizen of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians.

Carcieri and Its Potential Impact on Michigan Indian Tribes

I’m not going to add much to Bryan Newland’s reasonable commentary on the Carcieri decision, and my overall views will be in Indian Country Today on Thursday.

This post is about the potential impact of Carcieri on Michigan Indian tribes. I want to emphasize that this case may have significant potential impacts for Michigan tribes. The Grand Traverse Band in particular extensively cooperated with the Tribal Supreme Court Project substantively from the time this case first appeared in the First Circuit; one wouldn’t necessarily know that from the opinion and the pleadings, which are all under the banner of the National Congress of American Indians. NCAI owes GTB a great deal here for the risk it took.

GTB, as a tribe somewhat similarly situated to the Narragansett Tribe, had a great deal to lose by popping their heads up and taking a stand in this case. The Court could have come down with a much harsher bright-line rule. One should realize how this case could have — and may still — be a serious blow to the Grand Traverse Band and other tribes like them.

Here are my thoughts on the potential impact on Michigan Indian Tribes:

Continue reading

Initial Reaction to Carcieri Opinion

I took a deep breath and drafted this initial review of the opinion. The deep breath was to avoid a knee-jerk response here like the one I had after the Plains Commerce Bank decision last year.

The Supreme Court handed down its opinion in the case of Carcieri v. Kempthorne (Salazar), which involed the Narragansett Indian Tribe’s petition to have land placed into trust by the Secretary of Interior. The Court ruled that the Secretary of Interior could not place land into trust for the Tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act, because the Tribe was not recognized at the time the IRA was passed in 1934 (the Narragansett Tribe was finally acknowledged in 1983, after a century-long effort).

The decision was 6-3 in favor of the Governor of Rhode Island, although Justice Stevens was the only justice to fully dissent from the opinion, and drafted an opinion in support of the Tribe.

The IRA states that the Secretary of Interior may place land into trust for tribes “now under Federal jurisdiction.” According to the Court, use of the word “now” means that this provision only applies to tribes under federal jurisdiction at the time the IRA was passed.

You can find the opinion and background materials here.

A couple of quick thoughts on this case:

Continue reading

Commentary on Possible Burt Lake Band Casino Development

Yesterday’s interesting statement by a lawyer for the Burt Lake Band suggesting that all the Band would need to commence gaming is simple legislation from the State Legislature deserves a spot of commentary. I guess their lawyer is reading this provision of the Michigan Constitution, added by state referendum in 2004, for support:

The legislature may authorize lotteries and permit the sale of lottery tickets in the manner provided by law. No law enacted after January 1, 2004, that authorizes any form of gambling shall be effective, nor after January 1, 2004, shall any new state lottery games utilizing table games or player operated mechanical or electronic devices be established, without the approval of a majority of electors voting in a statewide general election and a majority of electors voting in the township or city where gambling will take place. This section shall not apply to gambling in up to three casinos in the City of Detroit or to Indian tribal gaming. [Mich. Const. sec. 41, emphasis added]

Since Burt Lake Band is not a federally recognized tribe, they would not be subject the requirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, nor would the Department of Interior take land into trust for the Band under 25 U.S.C. 465. So the lawyer’s statement (“A bill will have to be introduced, passed by a simple majority in the House and Senate, has to be signed by Gov. Granholm, and we can rock and roll from there”) that the Band isn’t subject to all these difficult regulatory hurdles is correct, perhaps, but only if the Band would be considered eligible for “Indian tribal gaming” under Section 41.

Leaving aside for the moment the very real political problem the Band would face getting the Michigan Legislature to pass a special statute for them, I think there might be a significant legal problem facing the Band. Literally read, Section 41 applies to all Indian tribes. Burt Lake Band is an Indian tribe, as are the 12 federally recognized tribes. And so are the other non-federally recognized tribes as the Mackinaw Band, the Black River and Swan Creek Band, and Grand River Band. However, I strongly suspect the intent of the provision was to protect the federally recognized tribes of Michigan.

In short, I doubt the “Indian tribal gaming” language was intended to include tribes like the Burt Lake Band. It is my understanding (I was living in Grand Forks, N.D. when the voters adopted this referendum) that the key sponsors of the language were the federally recognized tribes. If there is any legislative history on this Section, I’d like to see it. Moreover, the State of Michigan has cut deals with all 12 federally recognized tribes to conduct gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, so it makes additional sense to limit the “Indian tribal gaming” language.

I think there are also some sound public policy reasons for limiting the application of that language. The key one for me is that, if Burt Lake Band gets special legislation, Michigan will be innundated by Johnny-come-lately “Indian tribes” from all over looking for the same backdoor to a casino.

I’m a very strong supporter of Burt Lake’s petition for federal recognition, and any efforts to convince Congress to recognize the Band. But I surely hope their lawyer is doing more than just blowing smoke. There isn’t going to be much “rock and roll” from here.

MichGO Decision — Implications for Carcieri v. Kempthorne?

Who knows, except the people at the Supreme Court?

One possibility is that the Supreme Court denied cert in MichGO because the Court is going to uphold the Secretary of Interior’s authority to take land into trust for tribes not federally recognized in 1934 (tribes like the Gun Lake Band and the Narragansett Tribe), the key issue in Carcieri. If the Court was to reject the Secretary’s authority in Carcieri, then there would be reason to grant cert in MichGO to correct the lower court’s holding. They might choose to do this through a tool called GVR — Grant, Vacate, and Remand. But if the Court was to affirm the Secretary’s holding, then the lower court decision in MichGO is correct even after Carcieri, and so there’s no reason to review the decision.

However, there might be a problem with this theory; namely (if I am correct), MichGO never once argued that Gun Lake Band is ineligible under Section 5 because it wasn’t recognized in 1934. They did raise it in the cert petition, but one suspects that it’s too late then. MichGO could have raised the question from the outset, because the Narragansett litigation had been ongoing for some time. So maybe that’s why the Court denied cert in MichGO. And, if so, the cert denial offers no clues as to the possible outcome in Carcieri.

Finally, one great bit of news — since the Court denied cert in MichGO, the nondelegation doctrine claim that MichGO brought to the Court once again goes by the wayside (the Court had previously refused to accept this question in Carcieri as well, and in several other cases before that).

MichGO’s Reply Brief

The certiorari stage briefing in Michigan Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne (No. 08-554) is complete with the filing of the petitioner’s reply brief (here).

Here are the other briefs.

The conference where the Court will discuss this case is January 9.

First Glimpse at a Possible Post-Carcieri World

The United States Department of Justice has been thinking a little bit about what will happen if the Supreme Court rules against the Secretary of Interior in Carceri v. Kempthorne. We’ve already suggested that, based on oral argument, that the Secretary’s authority under Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act will be sharply limited in relation to tribes “not under federal supervision” or “under federal jurisdiction in 1934.”

In the recent filing opposition a petition for a writ of certiorari in MichGO v. Kempthorne, a direct challenge to Section 5 as applied to all tribes, the Solicitor General’s officer may have laid the groundwork for a post-Carcieri world. The MichGO petitioners, who have been using the litigation to delay the opening of the Gun Lake Band of Pottawatomi Indians’ casino for years, appear to be pushing the Supreme Court to hold the MichGO petition until after Carcieri is decided (likely in January or February). But the government argued that no such delay was necessary, because (and this is the key part, where the United States asserts what will happen if the Court rules against the government):

Continue reading

Federal Court Holds Lumbee Tribe Must Comply with Title VII

Here is the opinion from the Eastern District of North Carolina in Cummings v. Lumbee Tribe — cummings-v-lumbee-tribe-dct-order

The issue wasn’t briefed at all, it appears, by the defendants, who just made a motion. But here are the materials anyway:

lumbee-tribe-answer

cummings-opposition-brief