ICT Editorial on Carcieri

From ICT:

Decision’s in. ‘Now’ begins work to fix Carcieri

The Supreme Court’s Feb. 24 decision in Carcieri v. Salazar is a significant defeat for the Narragansett Tribe, and perhaps for hundreds of other Indian tribes not federally recognized in 1934. Carcieri seemingly overturns the Department of Interior’s 70-year-plus practice of taking land into trust for Indian tribes federally recognized after 1934. But while the decision will be disruptive and expensive for Indian tribes affected, it might not be utterly devastating.

Carcieri held that the secretary has no authority to take land into trust for the Narragansetts because they are not an eligible Indian tribe as defined by the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. Only tribes that meet the definition of “Indian tribe” under the IRA are eligible for the fee to trust benefit; in other words, according to the court, tribes that were “under federal jurisdiction” on June 1, 1934. The secretary of the interior did not recognize the Narragansett Tribe as an Indian tribe at that time, and so the court held that the secretary may not take land into trust for the tribe under the IRA. The court’s cramped reading of “now” is the worst kind of judicial formalism, like that recently critiqued by Professor Alex Skibine in the American Indian Law Review.

It is important to parse out exactly which tribes – and which land parcels – are affected by this decision. First, Indian lands already in trust with the secretary of the interior are safe, because the United States already owns the land and is immune from a suit seeking to reverse a fee to trust acquisition. That means tribes operating business enterprises on trust land will be protected by the federal government’s immunity. Second, Indian tribes such as the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians with special statutes authorizing the secretary to take land into trust for them, usually as a result of a congressional recognition act or land claims settlement act, also are exempted.

The Supreme Court’s Feb. 24 decision in Carcieri v. Salazar is a significant defeat for the Narragansett Tribe, and perhaps for hundreds of other Indian tribes not federally recognized in 1934.

Interestingly, the final paragraph in Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion – a major litigation-starter – appears to assume that the Carcieri case is limited to its facts, and therefore only applies to the Narragansett Tribe. The concurring opinions from Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter, as well as Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissent, suggest that numerous other tribes that can demonstrate that they were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934, even if “the Department did not know it at the time,” in Breyer’s words. The concurring and dissenting justices named several tribes that fit into this category, including the Stillaguamish Tribe, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, and the Mole Lake Tribe. In short, according to Justice Breyer, a tribe that could show it was party to a treaty with the United States, the beneficiary of a pre-1934 congressional appropriation, or enrollment with the Indian Office as of 1934. The Narragansett Tribe, according to the court, was under the jurisdiction of Rhode Island in 1934, not the Department of the Interior, and so they are not eligible.

These exceptions to the general Carcieri rule mean that Indian tribes in the twilight of the concurring opinions may be engaged in expensive litigation to prove that they were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934. Such litigation may require the heavy expenditure of funds for expert witnesses, forcing some tribes to undergo the strange and humiliating process of earning a kind of federal recognition all over again. In the coming weeks, the Obama administration should take the lead in defining what “under federal jurisdiction” means to blunt the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Obama administration should take the lead in defining what “under federal jurisdiction” means to blunt the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Regardless, now is the time for Indian country to test the waters in Washington D.C., to see if the Obama administration is serious about change and to press the Democratic-controlled Congress for a Carcieri “fix.” It might not take much legislation, just a quick rewording of the definition of Indian tribe in the IRA to remove the word “now.” The administration and Congress may be sympathetic, given that the Roberts Court seems to go out of its way to punish Indian tribes. A Carcieri “fix” pitched as merely reversing a bad Supreme Court decision would not work a major change on the federal-tribal-state relationship because it would merely be restoring the pre-Carcieri state of affairs that had existed for over seven decades.

For the Narragansett Tribe, this decision is yet another slap in the face to a tribe that has done nothing wrong but what it can to survive. For six justices, the Narragansetts did not pass the test of “federal jurisdiction,” a test that no one could have known in 1934 they would have been required to pass. Nothing could be more arbitrary and capricious.

Matthew L.M. Fletcher is associate professor at the Michigan State University College of Law and director of the Northern Plains Indian Law Center. He is an enrolled citizen of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians.

Carcieri and Its Potential Impact on Michigan Indian Tribes

I’m not going to add much to Bryan Newland’s reasonable commentary on the Carcieri decision, and my overall views will be in Indian Country Today on Thursday.

This post is about the potential impact of Carcieri on Michigan Indian tribes. I want to emphasize that this case may have significant potential impacts for Michigan tribes. The Grand Traverse Band in particular extensively cooperated with the Tribal Supreme Court Project substantively from the time this case first appeared in the First Circuit; one wouldn’t necessarily know that from the opinion and the pleadings, which are all under the banner of the National Congress of American Indians. NCAI owes GTB a great deal here for the risk it took.

GTB, as a tribe somewhat similarly situated to the Narragansett Tribe, had a great deal to lose by popping their heads up and taking a stand in this case. The Court could have come down with a much harsher bright-line rule. One should realize how this case could have — and may still — be a serious blow to the Grand Traverse Band and other tribes like them.

Here are my thoughts on the potential impact on Michigan Indian Tribes:

Continue reading

SBM Indian Law Section Amicus Brief in In re Lee Filed Today

Here is the brief, submitted at the invitation of the Michigan Supreme Court, and co-authored by the MSU Indigenous Law and Policy Center and Michigan Indian Legal Services.

icwa-lee-brief-feb-24-final

Commentary: Now Is the Time for Michigan Tribes to Renew Their Gaming Compacts

The success — shocking and aweing (surely to the MichGO plaintiffs — :)) — of the Gun Lake Band in getting their Class III gaming compact through the Michigan Senate (controlled by Republicans) and House (controlled by Dems, and a few years back had previously approved the compact) should be a serious sign to the rest of the Michigan tribes — NOW is the time to renew or renegotiate gaming compacts.

Here are the facts:

  1. Michigan, and the rest of the US, is in a serious, serious economic downturn.
  2. The State of Michigan, losing tax revenue each and every day, and suffering through year after year of declining governmental revenues.
  3. Michigan tribes, also, are suffering through declining revenue. It turns out that gaming may be recession-proof, but it surely isn’t depression-proof. Now is the time to prove to the State’s negotiators that tribes will be hurt — perhaps even killed — by increased revenue sharing.
  4. Gov. Granholm isn’t going to be the State’s governor forever. The next governor may be someone far less likely to (a) negotiate an Indian gaming compact with reasonable terms, or (b) negotiate a gaming compact at all.
  5. Tribes like Burt Lake will be knocking at the State’s door offering something more than 10 percent, all the way up to the Detroit casino’s 36 percent (did I get that percentage right?).

Continue reading

LVD Contract Claim Remanded Back to State Court

Here is the opinion from the District of Arizona in Lac Vieux Desert Band v. Atlico USA — lvd-v-cardona-dct-order

Here is the complaint from an earlier post.

26th Annual MSU Powwow of Love

NAISO presents….

26th Annual MSU Pow-Wow of Love,
February 21st&22nd, 2009 at the Jenison Field House
Everyone Is Welcome And Encouraged To Attend!

Grand entries:

  • Saturday February 21st at 1:00pm and 7:00pm
  • Sunday February 22nd at 12:00pm
  • Doors open for the General Public at 10:00 am both days.

This event will host award-winning Native American traditional singing, dancing, and artwork from all over North America.
Powwow co-chairs:
Kathyrn Adams , trader/vendor chair (vendor contact)
Ashley Ryerse , hospitality chair (drum,dancer contact)
Marcus Winchester , advertising chair (advertising contact)
Garrett Faulk , funding chair

-Host Hotel- *Ask for Pow-wow Rates*
Howard Johnson East Lansing
1100 Trowbridge Rd
East Lansing, MI 48823 US

  • Click for More Info or call NAISO at: (517) 432-7153
  • Handicap services are available upon request from Pat Dyer-Deckrow at (517) 353-7745 at least 10 days in advance.

Michigan House Approves Gun Lake Compact

From AP:

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The state will get a slice of revenue from a planned Native American casino southwest of Grand Rapids, thanks to a deal approved by both chambers of the Legislature.

The House approved a resolution on the compact with the Gun Lake tribe by a voice vote Thursday. A similar resolution was approved by the Senate earlier this month.

The 2007 compact was negotiated between the tribe and Gov. Jennifer Granholm. The federal government put 147 acres of land into trust for the casino in Allegan County’s Wayland Township this year.

Continue reading

Michigan Indian Education Critical Issues Conference — Agenda and Registration

Here is the registration information and conference agenda for the 2009 MIEC Conference at the Soaring Eagle Inn and Conference Center, March 12-14.

miec-2009

Jeff Davis (Turtle Mountain), 14-year veteran of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Michigan, will be the keynote speaker.

I’ll be presenting a history of the Michigan Indian Tuition Waiver at 8:30 on Friday. And I’ll be talking about ways to use my book (“American Indian Education”) in the classroom at 1 on Friday.

Commentary on Possible Burt Lake Band Casino Development

Yesterday’s interesting statement by a lawyer for the Burt Lake Band suggesting that all the Band would need to commence gaming is simple legislation from the State Legislature deserves a spot of commentary. I guess their lawyer is reading this provision of the Michigan Constitution, added by state referendum in 2004, for support:

The legislature may authorize lotteries and permit the sale of lottery tickets in the manner provided by law. No law enacted after January 1, 2004, that authorizes any form of gambling shall be effective, nor after January 1, 2004, shall any new state lottery games utilizing table games or player operated mechanical or electronic devices be established, without the approval of a majority of electors voting in a statewide general election and a majority of electors voting in the township or city where gambling will take place. This section shall not apply to gambling in up to three casinos in the City of Detroit or to Indian tribal gaming. [Mich. Const. sec. 41, emphasis added]

Since Burt Lake Band is not a federally recognized tribe, they would not be subject the requirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, nor would the Department of Interior take land into trust for the Band under 25 U.S.C. 465. So the lawyer’s statement (“A bill will have to be introduced, passed by a simple majority in the House and Senate, has to be signed by Gov. Granholm, and we can rock and roll from there”) that the Band isn’t subject to all these difficult regulatory hurdles is correct, perhaps, but only if the Band would be considered eligible for “Indian tribal gaming” under Section 41.

Leaving aside for the moment the very real political problem the Band would face getting the Michigan Legislature to pass a special statute for them, I think there might be a significant legal problem facing the Band. Literally read, Section 41 applies to all Indian tribes. Burt Lake Band is an Indian tribe, as are the 12 federally recognized tribes. And so are the other non-federally recognized tribes as the Mackinaw Band, the Black River and Swan Creek Band, and Grand River Band. However, I strongly suspect the intent of the provision was to protect the federally recognized tribes of Michigan.

In short, I doubt the “Indian tribal gaming” language was intended to include tribes like the Burt Lake Band. It is my understanding (I was living in Grand Forks, N.D. when the voters adopted this referendum) that the key sponsors of the language were the federally recognized tribes. If there is any legislative history on this Section, I’d like to see it. Moreover, the State of Michigan has cut deals with all 12 federally recognized tribes to conduct gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, so it makes additional sense to limit the “Indian tribal gaming” language.

I think there are also some sound public policy reasons for limiting the application of that language. The key one for me is that, if Burt Lake Band gets special legislation, Michigan will be innundated by Johnny-come-lately “Indian tribes” from all over looking for the same backdoor to a casino.

I’m a very strong supporter of Burt Lake’s petition for federal recognition, and any efforts to convince Congress to recognize the Band. But I surely hope their lawyer is doing more than just blowing smoke. There isn’t going to be much “rock and roll” from here.

Burt Lake Band May Pursue Casino under State Law Without Federal Recognition

From Indianz:

The Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians doesn’t need federal recognition to open a casino in Michigan, a lawyer for the tribe said.

The tribe can pursue state approval for a casino in Sturgis, said John Dresser, of Dresser, Dresser, Haas and Caywood. “A bill will have to be introduced, passed by a simple majority in the House and Senate, has to be signed by Gov. Granholm, and we can rock and roll from there,” Dresser told Business Review Western Michigan. The process would take much longer if the tribe was recognized, according to Dresser. He said new regulations would limit where the tribe could pursue a casino.

Get the Story:
Truck stop with casino seen as a quick economic fix for Sturgis (Business Review Western Michigan 2/17)