IGRA – Page 53 – Turtle Talk

The Shinnecock Indian Nation and its tribal officials (collectively, the “Shinnecock” or the “Tribe”) appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joseph F. Bianco, Judge). After a bench trial, the district court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the Tribe from developing a casino on a plot of land known as Westwoods without complying with the laws of New York State and the Town of Southampton. The Shinnecock object to a number of the district court’s factual and legal conclusions, including its findings: (1) that tribal sovereign immunity from suit does not bar this action; (2) that the Shinnecock’s aboriginal title to the land at Westwoods was extinguished in the seventeenth century; (3) that even if aboriginal title had not been extinguished, equitable principles would prevent the Shinnecock’s development of a casino in violation of state and local law; and (4) that the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) supplanted any federal common law right the Tribe may have had to operate the casino. They also argue that the Bureau of Indian Affairs’s recent recognition of the Shinnecock Indian Nation moots the injunction.

We conclude that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and thus do not reach the merits of this appeal.

Lower court materials are here and here.

SCOTUSblog Coverage of Patchak Decision

June 18, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

And their plain language description:

In this case, the federal government took certain land into trust for an Indian tribe, which means that it took ownership of the land to allow the tribe to use it. The tribe planned to build a casino on the land. The Supreme Court held that a neighbor could sue the government to stop the casino project on the ground that the law did not permit the government to take the land into trust for this particular tribe

MLive In-Depth Coverage of Patchak Decision

June 18, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

An excerpt:

The ruling, Fletcher said, was not really a surprise.

“This is a court that is pretty reluctant to rule in favor of Indian tribes and I think they are very skeptical of things like Indian gaming.”

Fletcher said the Sotomayor dissent highlights the destabilizing consequences of Monday’s decision. Wrote Sotomayor:

“… the majority’s rule will impose a substantial burden on the Government and leave an array of uncertainties. Moreover, it will open to suit lands that Congress and the Executive Branch thought the “national public interest” demanded should remain immune from challenge. Congress did not intend either result.”

Fletcher said that whereas parties seeking to challenge land-in-title decisions previously only had 30 days to file action, after Monday, tribes will likely have to wait six years to develop any property the government takes into trust while they wait out potential lawsuits against the use of the property.

“It’s very difficult to borrow money or do anything with land under those circumstances.’

The vast majority of Indian land-in-trust decisions by the government are for reasons like housing, treat rights, environmental protection and public safety. Very little are done for gaming reasons, Fletcher said.