From the House Judiciary Committee website:
The Honorable Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick
U.S. House of Representatives
Michigan, 13th District
Chief Fred Cantu
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan
fee to trust
House Hearing on Bay Mills/Sault Tribe Off-Rez Gaming
From Indianz:
Not sure what it means below that Alicia Walker is chair at Sault Tribe….
The House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing this morning on two off-reservation casino bills.
H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 settle land claims for the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. The tribes would be able to open casinos on sites hundreds of miles away from their existing reservations. The bills have been approved by the House Natural Resources Committee. But Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), the chairman of the Judiciary committee, opposes the measures. The hearing takes place at 10am and will be broadcast at http://judiciary.house.gov.
Jeff Parker in Business Week re: Metro Detroit Casino Proposals
From Business Week:
MGM Mirage’s Hidden Card
The flyers mailed to homes across Michigan in late January looked like the handiwork of a group bitterly opposed to gambling. They pictured dice emblazoned with exclamation marks, piles of crumpled-up cash, and text blaring: “Washington Poised to Force Two New Casinos on Michigan Families. Only You Can Stop the Special Interests.” The outfit behind this grassroots campaign calls itself Gambling Watch.
As it turns out, Gambling Watch is a tiny operation financed by MGM Mirage (MGM), one of the world’s largest gaming companies. MGM is locked in a bitter dispute with two Native American tribes that hope to open casinos in Michigan. The Las Vegas company inaugurated a new $800 million casino in downtown Detroit in October and is not in the mood for competition. There’s nothing underhanded about its tactics, MGM says. “We’ve made no secret of where we are on this,” says Alan Feldman, senior vice-president for public affairs at MGM Mirage.
Detroit News: Feds Defend Casino Plan Rejections
From the Detroit News:
WASHINGTON — Indian tribes face long odds in winning federal approval for casinos hundreds of miles away from their reservations, the Bush administration told Congress on Wednesday.
In defending the decision to reject 22 such off-reservation casino applications around the country, officials further angered tribal leaders who told the House Resources Committee that the government is trying to force Indians to stay on reservations with high unemployment and few opportunities.
Written Testimony from House Resources Hearing re: New Fee to Trust Guidance
From the House Resources Committee:
Witnesses:
Panel 1
The Honorable Carl Artman, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
Panel 2
The Honorable Lorraine White, Chief, St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Council, Akwesasne, NY
The Honorable Vincent Armenta, Tribal Chairman, Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, Santa Ynez, CA
The Honorable Hazel Hindsley, Tribal Chairwoman, St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, Webster, WI
Mr. Jeff Warnke, Director, Government and Public Relations, Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, Oakville, WA
The Issues in Carcieri v. Kempthorne
The two questions presented in Carcieri v. Kempthorne have significant import for much of Indian Country. But it might be a mistake to conclude the first question (whether the Secretary can take land into trust for tribes that were not federally recognized in 1934, when the Indian Reorganization Act was passed) is an Indian law question. The outcome of that question may turn on the Supreme Court’s decision in National Cable & Communications Assn v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005). Huh?!?!?
Consider the United States’ brief in opposition to the petition for cert:
As this Court held in [Brand X], a “judicial precedent” does not “foreclose an agency from interpreting an ambiguous statute” in a reasonable way that differs from the “court’s opinion as to the best reading” of the statute, unless “the prior court decision holds that its construction follows from the unambiguous terms of the statute and thus leaves no room for agency discretion.” [Brand X, at 982-83.]
Cert Opp at 9.
Kevin Washburn testimony re: New Guidance on Off-Rez Gaming Lands Acquisitions
Kevin Washburn has posted on SSRN his testimony for tomorrow’s hearing before the House Resources Committee on the new guidance for the acquisition of off-reservation trust lands for gaming purposes.
Certiorari Granted in Carcieri v. Kempthorne
Here’s the order. The Court will address two questions:
1. Whether the 1934 Act empowers the Secretary to take land into trust for Indian tribes that were not recognized and under federal jurisdiction in 1934.
2. Whether an act of Congress that extinguishes aboriginal title and all claims based on Indian rights and interests in land precludes the Secretary from creating Indian country there.
The Court declined to hear the third proposed question presented:
3. Whether providing land “for Indians” in the 1934 Act establishes a sufficiently intelligible principle upon which to delegate the power to take land into trust.
St. Croix Chippewa Fee to Trust Litigation Update
St. Croix Band of Chippewa lost a motion for a preliminary injunction in their attempt to avoid the new off-reservation gaming rules [see here for Bryan Newland’s analysis of the new rules].
Here are the materials:
House Resources Committee Hearing re: New Fee-to-Trust Guidance Announced
From Indianz:
The House Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday, February 27, to discuss the Bush administration’s new land-into-trust policy.
In January, assistant secretary Carl Artman issued guidelines that make it harder for tribes to take land into trust for off-reservation casinos. More scrutiny will be applied to gaming sites that are hundreds of miles away from existing reservations. [See Bryan Newland’s excellent commentary on these new rules here.]
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.