fee to trust – Page 33

The Political Economy of the Carcieri Fix

October 17, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Last week’s hearing on the ongoing question of whether Congress will “fix” the Supreme Court’s Carcieri decision was a different take than earlier hearings, but still completely ignores the elephant in the room.

The first hearings were naked pleas to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision on the grounds that the decision was just plain incorrect. The increased complexity of administration of fee to trust acquisitions for tribes possibly affected by Carcieri and Interior was the backdrop there. Now it is jobs and economic development, truly important factors.

But what was missing, and what likely guarantees there will never be a Carcieri fix, was the big gaming tribes. It is the big gaming tribes that divide Indian country on this question, and even though there are only a dozen, maybe two, in question … and they have an effective veto on a Carcieri fix.

Forget Rhode Island’s concern about having their ridiculously expensive Supreme Court victory stripped away, or some Senators’ concerns about “reservation shopping.” Senators views can be changed, especially when political expediency requires it. But the powerful Indian gaming tribes’ interests are economic. So the hearings are incomplete at best, and maybe a sham at worst, because the real interests can stay quiet on the record.

Intertribal gaming revenue sharing anyone? But even that might not be enough.

ICT Article on Local Support for Gun Lake Casino

October 4, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the article (h/t Pechanga). And an excerpt:

More than 15 entities, including Wayland Township, Allegan County, the Allegan Area Education Service Agency, the cities of Wayland and Allegan, the Barry County Chamber of Commerce, the Barry County Economic Development Alliance, the Gun Lake Business Association, and the Deputy Sheriff’s Association of Michigan have filed a collective amici curiae – friend of the court – brief in the petition for certiorari filed with the high court by the Interior Department and the Match-E-Nash-E-Wish Band of Pottawatomi (the Gun Lake Tribe) Indians versus David Patchak. The high court has been asked to review a ruling issued by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last January that said Patchak, a former trustee in Wayland County, Michigan, has standing to bring a lawsuit against the Interior Department for taking into trust 147 acres in Bradley, Michigan, near Grand Rapids where the tribe operates its casino. The casino, which opened in February, created 900 new jobs and has brought a new wave of prosperity to local hotels, restaurants, vendors and other businesses in an area that had a reported 11.9 percent unemployment rate.

“Collectively, the amici curiae represent numerous individuals and businesses that support and have been positively affected by the Band’s economic development activities on the trust land. They submit this brief to explain the substantial local benefits that arise from the cooperative and mutually reinforcing economic development efforts of the Band, the regional governments, and local businesses,” the amici wrote. “The amici curiae urge this Court to grant the petitions for certiorari to resolve the debilitating uncertainty and economic instability created by the court of appeals’ decision, which threatens to stifle economic development in a state and region that has endured a disproportionate amount of economic suffering in recent years.”

NCAI Cert Stage Amicus Brief in Patchak Case

October 3, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

QL-sPBR1pnL

Update in Wyandotte Nation v. Salazar

September 27, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

The government has moved to change venue and the State of Kansas has moved to intervene:

Salazar Motion to Transfer Venue

Kansas Motion to Intervene

Opening Brief in Charles Mix County v. DOI — Constitutional Challenge to IRA Section 5

September 21, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Charles Mix County Opening Brief

Lower court materials here.

ICT Article on Gun Lake/United States Cert Petitions in Patchak Case

September 2, 2011September 1, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. An excerpt:

So, the potentially huge question for Indian country revolves around the Quiet Title Act, Fletcher said. “If the immunity barrier in the QTA can be gotten around, then much trust land recently taken into trust could be challenged by virtually anyone who is strongly opposed to trust land acquisitions. What’s remarkable about this case is the standing holding. Basically, all Patchak can prove is that he very strongly opposes Indian gaming. He’s not actually injured by it at all, other than worries about the ‘rural character’ of his community, whatever that means. Wayland and its surrounding townships long have hoped for more industry and economic growth – I know, I grew up there. So it’s just one guy for all we know who doesn’t want that. He’s pretty firmly in a tiny minority,” Fletcher said.

Gun Lake presents a number of arguments in seeking the high court’s review. Because the appeals court decision is on conflict with four other appeals court decisions in similar cases it has “opened a substantial gap” in the federal government’s sovereign immunity under the QTA from litigation challenging its title to trust or restricted Indian lands, as well as federal lands generally, the lawsuit says. If the appeals court ruling is left in place, that means anyone with a gripe could create a challenge in any case in which the federal government “claims an interest” whether it is Indian lands, national parks, public lands, easements or any other lands covered by the QTA’s terms and exceptions.

Also, because the D.C. Circuit hears almost all lawsuits against the federal government, prospective plaintiffs will now be able to “forum shop” their way around the United States’ sovereign immunity in disputes challenging the federal government’s title to land or “avoid the QTA and controlling circuit law altogether by simply filing their lawsuits in the District of Columbia,” the Gun Lake petition says.

The federal government’s petition asks the high court to consider “(w)hether (the Administrative Procedures Act) waives the sovereign immunity of the United States from a suit challenging its title to lands that it holds in trust for an Indian Tribe,” and more directly seeks the high court’s review of the Carcieri ruling in asking “(w)hether a private individual who alleges injuries resulting from the operation of a gaming facility on Indian trust land has prudential standing to challenge the decision of the Secretary of the Interior to take title to that land in trust, on the ground that the decision was not authorized by the Indian Reorganization Act.”

Among the arguments presented by the federal government in seeking the high court’s review is that the Administrative Procedure Act under which Patchak filed his lawsuit against the Interior Department does not allow an end run around the Quiet Title Act’s provision that precludes any person from seeking to divest the United States of title to Indian trust lands.

Cert Petition in Salazar v. Patchak

August 25, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

US Cert Petition in Patchak

Questions presented:

1. Whether 5 U.S.C. § 702 waives the sovereign immunity of the United States from a suit challenging its title to lands that it holds in trust for an Indian tribe.

2. Whether a private individual who alleges injuries resulting from the operation of a gaming facility on Indian trust land has prudential standing to challenge the decision of the Secretary of the Interior to take title to that land in trust, on the ground that the decision was not authorized by the Indian Reorganization Act, ch. 576, 48 Stat. 984.

Gun Lake’s petition is here, along with a link to lower court materials.

Gun Lake Band Cert Petition in Patchak

August 25, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

2011.08.24 – Gun Lake Cert Petition.

I. Whether the Quiet Title Act and its reservation of the United States’ sovereign immunity in suits involving “trust or restricted Indian lands” apply to all suits concerning land in which the United States “claims an interest,” 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a), as the Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, or whether they apply only when the
plaintiff claims title to the land, as the D.C. Circuit held.

II. Whether prudential standing to sue under federal law can be based on either (i) the plaintiff’s ability to “police” an agency’s compliance with the law, as held by the D.C. Circuit but rejected by the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits, or (ii) interests protected by a different federal statute than the one on which suit is based, as held by the D.C. Circuit but rejected by the Federal Circuit.

Lower court materials here.