fee to trust – Page 25

Seventh Circuit Holds Oneida Owes No Stormwater Fees to Village of Hobart

October 21, 2013October 21, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here are the materials in Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin v. Village of Hobart:

CA7 Opinion

Village of Hobart Brief

Oneida Brief

United States Brief

Village of Hobart Reply

An excerpt from Judge Posner’s opinion:

Nevertheless we can imagine an argument, built on our earlier example of the Village’s authority to deploy its firefighters on Indian parcels, for an exception of necessity—a common law graft onto the Clean Water Act—to the Oneida tribe’s exclusive authority over Indian land. But the Village doesn’t argue for such an exception; it doesn’t deny the feasibility of cooperative arrangements between it and the tribe, which has signed cooperative service agreements with other government bodies in the area.

So Hobart loses its case against the tribe. And there is another reason it must lose. Because federal law forbids states and local authorities to tax Indian lands, the tribe can’t be forced to pay the assessment decreed by the challenged ordinance if the assessment is a tax.

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Denies Alaska and US Motions for Reconsideration in Akiachak Native Community v. Jewell

October 2, 2013October 1, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials:

112-1 Alaska Motion for Reconsideration

113 Akiachak Opposition

116 Akiachak Supplemental Memorandum

118 Interior Supplemental Memorandum

119 Alaska Supplemental Memorandum

120 Interior Motion for Reconsideration + Exhibits

121 Interior Response to Alaska Motion

124 Akiachak Reply

126 Alaska Reply

127 Akiachak Response to Interior Motion

129 Interior Reply

130 Akiachak 09-30-2013 denying motion for reconsideration

The previous posts in this case are here and here.

Briefs Filed in Grand Ronde et al v. Jewell

September 26, 2013October 1, 2013Kate Fort

Grand Ronde’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Grand Ronde Exhibit One
Clark County et al Motion for Summary Judgment

Previous coverage of the case here.

New Scholarship on Carcieri, Patchak, and the HEARTH Act Regulations

September 20, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Noah Nehemiah Gillespie has published “Preserving Trust: Overruling Carcieri and Patchak While Respecting the Takings Clause” (PDF) in the George Washington Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

The potential benefit of new Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) regulations for development on Native land has been overshadowed by two recent Supreme Court decisions—Carcieri v. Salazar and Match-E-Be-Nash-She- Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak—which cast doubt on the title to Native land and dramatically expand the rights of nearby owners to sue by challenging Native use of that land under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Legislation that would amend the statutes the Court interpreted in Carcieri and Patchak could remedy these ill effects but would pose a new problem: the taking of a vested cause of action without just compensation.

This Essay proposes that Congress enact appropriate legislation that both overrules the Court’s interpretations of the relevant statutes and permits takings suits in place of suits under the APA, so that Native land remains securely under Native control. In addition, the BIA must harness the agency deference it deserves to set Native sovereignty at the center of federal Indian policy.

House Resources Subcommittee Hearing on Federal Trust Acquisitions for Gaming Purposes

September 19, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Oversight Hearing on:

“Executive Branch standards for land-in-trust decisions for gaming purposes”

Member Statements:

The Honorable Don Young
Subcommittee Chairman

Witnesses and Testimony:

PANEL I

Kevin Washburn
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs
U.S. Department of the Interior

PANEL II

The Honorable Todd Mielke
County Commissioner
County of Spokane

Hazel Longmire
Vice-Chairperson
Colusa Indian Community Council

Alexander Skibine
Professor
University of Utah

Federal Court Grants Intervention to Ione Band Miwok in Challenge to Federal Trust Land Acquisition

September 19, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials so far in No Casino in Plymouth v. Jewell (E.D. Cal.):

35 Ione Band Motion for Intervention

39 NCIP Opposition

44 Ione Band Reply

46 DCT Order Granting Intervention

Complaints are here.

Bloomberg on Sea Change on Indian Gaming from Bush’s Interior to Obama’a Interior

September 18, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

An excerpt:

Skibine said the Bush administration was in the thick of a lawsuit in which tribes sued the federal government for mismanaging reservation land and were reluctant to take more into trust — a precursor to any reservation gaming project that isn’t located on the tribe’s traditional grounds.

The Bush White House was also operating in the midst of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, in which Capitol Hill aides and Republican advocates secretly pitted tribes and Christian groups against one another while raking in millions.

The administration’s policy was presented in a Jan. 3, 2008, Indian Affairs memo that limited how far from a tribe’s existing reservation a casino project could be located.

“No application to take land into trust beyond a commutable distance from the reservation should be granted unless it carefully and comprehensively analyzes the potential negative impacts on reservation life and clearly demonstrates why these are outweighed by the financial benefits of tribal ownership in a distant gaming facility,” Carl Artman, Bush’s assistant secretary of Interior for Indian Affairs, wrote.