Here (as reported in Indianz):
fee to trust
Sens. McCain and Kyl Introduce Bill to Reinstate the so-called “Artman Guidance”
Here is the text of S. 1424:
It’s a bill:
To clarify the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior in making a determination whether to take off-reservation land into trust for gaming purposes.
The crux of the bill is the “reasonable commuting standard.”
House Resources Committee Hearing on Carcieri Fix
Here:
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
11:00 a.m.
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON:
- H.R. 1291 (Cole) to amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian tribes, and for other purposes;
- H.R. 1234 (Kildee) to amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian tribes; and
- H.R. 1421 (Boren) to amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to clarify the role of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma with regard to the maintenance of the W.D. Mayo Lock and Dam in Oklahoma.
OPENING STATEMENT:
Representative Don Young
Chairman
WITNESSES AND TESTIMONY:
Arizona Law Authorizing Expedited Eminent Domain to Prevent Indian Trust Land Acquisitions Struck Down
Here are the materials in Tohono O’odham Nation v. City of Glendale (D. Ariz.):
Federal Court Affirms Interior Trust Acquisition for Karuk Tribe
Here are the materials in City of Yreka v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Granting Summary J to Government
An excerpt:
Plaintiffs argue that the regional director failed to consider the impact of gaming uses. (Pls.’ Mot. at 6:26–7:28; Pls.’ Opp’n at 4:22–28.) However, the Secretary need not consider “speculati[ve]” future uses of the land. See City of Lincoln City, 229 F.Supp.2d at 1124; see e.g., South Dakota I, 423 F.3d at 801, 801 n. 9 (holding that “the Secretary was not required to seek out further evidence of possible gaming purposes in light of the Tribe’s repeated assurances that it did not intend to use the land for gaming,” a letter from the then-state governor stating that he had been assured that the tribe would not conduct gaming on the land, and the tribe’s acknowledgment that “if it were later to seek to allow gaming on the land, it would fully comply with the additional application and approval requirements in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721”). As the IBIA’s decision explained the issue:
This fear … is entirely speculative. Nothing in the record suggests that the Tribe contemplates the use of the parcel for gaming. To the contrary, not only does the Tribe admit that the land does not qualify for gaming use under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2719(a), but the Tribe contends that the renovated site is completely developed and could not feasibly or fiscally-responsibly be used for gaming even if the Tribe wanted it to be so used. Additionally Tribal Resolution No. 07–R–160, approved on December 19, 2007, explicitly eschewed the use of the parcel for gaming.
City of Yreka, 51 IBIA at 296–97. Accordingly, the regional director adequately considered the tribe’s purpose for the land.
Federal Court Order Granting Stay Pending Appeal in Tohono O’odham Trust Acquisition Case
Here:
DCT Order Granting Stay in TON Trust Acquisition Case
The earlier order granting summary judgment to the federal government is here.
Preliminary Materials in Clark County, Wash. Challenge to Cowlitz Trust Acquisition
Iowa Law Review Note on Possible Carcieri Fixes
Amanda Hettler has published her note “Beyond a Carcieri Fix: The Need for Broader Reform of the Land-Into-Trust Process of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934” in the Iowa Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
: In Carcieri v. Salazar, the Supreme Court held that under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 the Secretary of the Interior can take land into trust only for those tribes that were federally recognized prior to 1934. In light of this decision, many tribes and leaders called for a legislative Carcieri fix. While a fix is necessary, this decision has provided lawmakers with a historic opportunity to reform both the statutory and regulatory frameworks for the land-into-trust program. The current process is inadequate and often leaves state and local governments with little voice in the process. It is often administered inefficiently, harming tribal interests and state and local governmental interests. Congress can and should provide a balanced fix that not only remedies the Carcieri issue, but also reforms the regulations governing this process and sets out new purposes and goals for this program.
ASU CLE on The Economic Future of Indian Lands
“Treaty to Trust to Carcieri: The Economic Future for Indian Lands CLE Conference”
Hosted by the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at ASU’s Indian Legal Program and the American Indian Policy Institute at ASU.
ASU Tempe Campus, Memorial Union, Ventana Ballroom
April 28 – 8:00 am – 5 pm
April 29 – 8:30 am – 1 pm
This conference will present and analyze contemporary issues that impact tribal land management and strategic development. It will examine the history of Indian lands, integration of culture into planning, impact of global issues on reservation planning, impact of local issues on tribal land use, and the future of the fee-to-trust process. Participants will leave the conference with a knowledge that will allow tribes to grow and manage their land base in an economically efficient and culturally sensitive manner. Keynote Lunch Speaker: Allison Binney, Akin Gump.
Regular Registration Rate: $350.00 (Register by 04/26 by 5 pm)
Walk-In Registration Rate: $400.00 (Register 04/28 – at the door)
More information and online registration at www.regonline.com/indianlands
9.5 general CLE credits available for State Bars of Arizona, California and New Mexico
11.5 general CLE credit hours for Wisconsin, and Oklahoma MCLE.
Federal Court Affirms Interior Decision to Take Yankton Travel Plaza Parcel into Trust
Here is the order in County of Charles Mix v. DOI (D. S.D.):
DCT Order Denying Granting Summary J against Charles Mix County
Here are the briefs.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.