1. Whether Congress intended the phrase “under Federal jurisdiction,” as used in the 1934 Act, to encompass a tribe that, as of June 18, 1934, had no land held on its behalf by the federal government, either in trust or as allotments; was not a party to any treaty with the United States; did not receive services or benefits from the federal government; did not have members enrolled with the Indian Office; and which was not invited to organize under the IRA in 1934 by the Secretary like other recognized tribes in Amador County; but for whom the federal government had unsuccessfully attempted to purchase land pursuant to a generic appropriation authorizing the purchase of land for unspecified “landless Indians” in California?

3. Whether the Secretary, having explicitly concluded that in enacting the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Congress intended that Indian tribes “restored to Federal recognition” refers only to tribes that are “restored” pursuant to (a) congressional legislation, (b) a judgment or settlement agreement in a federal court case to which the United States is a party, or (c) “through the administrative Federal Acknowledgment Process under [25 C.F.R. § 83.8],” and having embodied that conclusion in a formal regulation, 25 C.F.R. § 292.10, can then act contrary to Congress’s intention by “grandfathering in” a preliminary (i.e., non-final) agency action treating Indians who do not meet the regulatory definition as “restored”?