Judge Angela Sherigan, tribal judge for Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, was selected to receive the Pro Bono Award from Legal Services Corporation. The event will be held at U of M law school on Thursday, July 26 from 1:30-7:30 pm.
The nomination is here.
Here are some interesting ironies of the reasoning and outcome in Patchak.
First, the prudential standing of David Patchak to sue the federal government to protect the rural character of his community (and related objections) — under Michigan law (I think) Patchak would have a much more difficult proof than he does under the conglomeration of statutes Patchak is using (APA, QTA, and I guess IGRA). Just a few weeks ago, the Michigan Court of Appeals (Tobin v City of Frankfort — thanks to B.A. for pointing this one out for me) rejected the standing of a landowner to challenge a development in Benzie County. Here were the injuries complained of:
Intervenor argues that it has established through its members’ affidavits that it has standing to intervene and pursue its member’s claims. The relevant declarations by FOBB members in their September 2000 affidavits primarily detail concerns about (1) increases in population, traffic, noise levels, lights, air pollution, and property taxes; (2) decreases in home values, aesthetics of the neighborhood, and environmental value caused by tree and vegetation removal attributable to the development; and (3) the potential presence of commercial establishments. The generalized concerns relating to environmental impacts, population increases, aesthetics, and pecuniary harm do not suffice to demonstrate “special damages . . . different in kind from those suffered by the community, so as to qualify [intervenor] as an aggrieved party.” Joseph, 5 Mich App at 571. Alternately phrased, development-related aesthetic changes, population increases, environmental impacts, and pecuniary harm will be experienced by other community members to the same extent as affiants.
But that’s not prudential standing, you say. True, but what an irony. This is Patchak’s list of alleged injuries in a nutshell:
To establish his standing to bring suit, Patchak contended that he lived “in close proximity to” the Bradley Property and that a casino there would “destroy the lifestyle he has enjoyed” by causing “increased traffic,” “increased crime,” “decreased property values,” “an irreversible change in the rural character of the area,” and “other aesthetic, socioeconomic, and environmental problems.”
Justice Kagan’s majority opinion then uses the Cohen Handbook as support for the proposition that since Interior takes land into trust for the benefit of Indian tribes (often economic benefit), then anyone seemingly opposed to tribal economies has standing (sorry for the long block quote):
Patchak’s suit satisfies that standard, because §465 has far more to do with land use than the Government and Band acknowledge. Start with what we and others have said about §465’s context and purpose. As the leading treatise on federal Indian law notes, §465 is “the capstone” of the IRA’s land provisions. F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law §15.07[1][a], p. 1010 (2005 ed.) (hereinafter Cohen). And those provisions play a key role in the IRA’s overall effort “to rehabilitate the Indian’s economic life,” Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U. S. 145, 152 (1973) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Land forms the basis” of that “economic life,” providing the foundation for “tourism, manufacturing, mining, logging, . . . and gaming.” Cohen §15.01, at 965. Section 465 thus functions as a primary mechanism to foster Indian tribes’ economic development. As the D. C. Circuit explained in the MichGO litigation, the section “provid[es] lands sufficient to enable Indians to achieve self-support.” Michigan Gambling, 525 F. 3d, at 31 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 542 (1974) (noting the IRA’s economic aspect). So when the Secretary obtains land for Indians under §465, she does not do so in a vacuum. Rather, she takes title to properties with at least one eye directed toward how tribes will use those lands to support economic development.
So in Michigan, someone who objects to development can’t sue because no one has adopted a statute specifically authorizing such development. In Indian law, someone who objects to tribal development can sue because Congress specifically did adopt a statute authorizing land purchases. The fact that Section 5 exists to remedy incredible tribal land dispossession and poverty is irrelevant.
Second, the land development question — Gun Lake Casino is up and running, and the State of Michigan and the local units of government (well, and the Tribe), are raking in millions upon millions. Patchak wants that to end (because apparently he didn’t care that Wayland’s football players were under a pay-to-play arrangement; more details here).
An excerpt:
A decision this week by the U.S. Supreme Court is seen as a setback for Indian tribes. The case involves the Gun Lake Tribe and its casino near Grand Rapids.
A neighbor is suing saying the casino is lowering property values and ruining the neighborhood.
As tribal attorneys see it, the Court opened a way for just about anyone to challenge the legitimacy of tribal lands. Land taken into trust by the federal over the last several years is especially vulnerable.
Matthew Fletcher is a member of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. He’s attorney and professor of law at Michigan State University.
And he tells IPR the decision is seen as a big set-back in Indian Country.
Here.
An excerpt:
Asked if there is any lemonade to the lemon of a decision from the high court, Fletcher said, “Lemonade? Sotomayor is Indian country’s best friend. Read the three consequences part of her dissent and you can see she actually gets it. She understands the consequences of these decisions. She gets it more than any other Justice in Supreme Court history. And that’s a fact.”
Sotomayor’s first point of dissent is that the Quiet Title Act clearly states that the right to sue the federal government in property disputes “does not apply to trust or restricted lands.” The exception, Sotomayor says, reflects the view that a waiver of immunity is inconsistent with treaty commitments and other agreements with the tribes. By exempting Indian lands, Congress ensured that the government’s “‘solemn obligations” to tribes would not be “abridged’ without their consent. Her second argument is that the QTA provides for the preservation of the government’s right to retain possession or control of property even if a court rules that the government’s property claim is invalid. This provision ensures that a negative court ruling would not interfere with government operations. Sotomayor’s third point is the QTA limits the class of individuals who are allowed to sue the government to those with a “right, title or interest” in the property.
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
.
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.
Here:
The text:
Bradley, Michigan – Today the U.S. Supreme Court rejected motions by the Gun Lake Tribe and U.S. government seeking to have David Patchak’s lawsuit dismissed on procedural grounds. The Court’s decision expressly declined to say anything about the merits of Patchak’s lawsuit. It simply allows Patchak to go forward with his lawsuit back at the lower court. The Tribe is ready to continue fighting the lawsuit and is confident that it will ultimately prove that Patchak’s claims are completely without merit.
“The Supreme Court clearly stated that this decision was not based on the merits. This is simply a procedural decision that has no impact on operations at Gun Lake Casino. The Casino will continue to operate, employ over 800 area residents, and provide millions of dollars to state and local governments,” said D.K. Sprague, Tribal Chairman.
The likely course of action is a remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit to U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before Judge Richard Leon. Judge Leon’s decision in January of 2009 to grant a procedural motion by the Tribe and U.S. would have ended Patchak’s lawsuit.
“This simply means that Patchak’s lawsuit can go forward before the federal courts, which may take many more years to finally resolve it. We are ready to continue that fight in federal court and we are confident the facts will clearly prove once and for all that Patchak’s claims have absolutely no merit. The Tribe would prefer to devote its resources to the economic development of the area; however, since Patchak’s lawsuit dictates otherwise, the Tribe will do what is necessary to prevail.”
Here.
An excerpt:
The nation’s highest court has decided to allow a lawsuit to move forward which threatens to shut down gaming at the Gun Lake Casino in Wayland Township.
In an 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld a lower court decision to allow former Wayland Township trustee David Patchak to continue with his lawsuit in federal district court.
Patchak, backed by anonymous benefactors, has challenged how the federal government took land in trust for the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, also known as the Gun Lake Tribe, in order for them to construct a casino.
Who are these people?
Four points on today’s decision in Patchak.
First, the SG lost yet another case while acting as tribal trustee. The trust responsibility is in real trouble, despite the Court’s surprising affirmation of Ramah. The Supreme Court does not appear to defer in any way to the OSG and especially the Department of Interior in the Indian cases, as I have said before.
Second, a majority of the Supreme Court appears to care nothing about the destabilizing consequences of their decisions. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent laid it all out for the rest of the Court. It’s not like the statutory construction of the Quiet Title Act and the Administrative Procedures Act was inevitable. This was not a plain language decision, but an interpretation. The Court chose this route over others.
Third, the Supreme Court once again has directly challenged Congress on Indian affairs. How many times has the Court said in the last 25 years, we’ve made our decision, now let Congress fix it if they don’t like it. So far, with the exception of the Duro fix, Congress hasn’t fixed anything. As I said before the SCIA a few weeks ago, Congress needs to step up and take charge of Indian affairs. Right now, the Supreme Court calls the shots.
Fourth, Justice Sotomayor proved today in her masterful and enlightening dissent that she is serious about knowing the practical realities of Indian country. With the only possible contender being Justice Blackmun, Justice Sotomayor may be the only Justice in American history that cares deeply enough about what happens in Indian country to learn about the impacts of the Court’s decisions. This is a common law area of law, and the Court has important policy making responsibilities that it is neglecting, and Justice Sotomayor is doing her homework.
Congressional action to correct the Supreme Court’s decision in Carcieri v. Salazar would cost American taxpayers nothing and would be an enormous win for Michigan tribes and the Michigan economy. Carcieri, a decision that undermines the certainty of the Department of Interior’s authority to acquire land in trust for some Indian tribes, makes borrowing money for several Michigan tribes more difficult and more expensive – for some Michigan tribes, the price to borrow money for capital growth increases by millions in increased interest or even the inability to borrow. In short, Carcieri costs the Michigan economy jobs and economic growth.
The Carcieri Decision
The Carcieri decision held that the Department of Interior could not take land into trust for the benefit of the Narragansett Indian Tribe in Rhode Island under Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (“IRA”), a statute that authorizes the Secretary of Interior to do so for any Indian tribe. The IRA’s definition of “Indian tribe” includes any tribe “now under federal jurisdiction.” The Interior Department had interpreted the IRA to authorize trust land acquisitions for tribes under federal jurisdiction at the time of the application, using federal recognition as a proxy for federal jurisdiction. But the Supreme Court held that the Narragansetts were under state jurisdiction at the time of the enactment of the IRA in 1934, and so Interior could not take land into trust for them.
The Department of Interior had “administratively terminated” several Michigan Indian tribes – all of the six Ottawa and Potawatomi tribes now federally recognized – in the late 19th century. These tribes are “treaty tribes,” meaning that they have an ongoing treaty relationship with the federal government that has never been extinguished by Congress. The Sixth Circuit has recognized that “administrative termination” was an illegal administrative act, and the concurrences and dissent in Carcieri also recognized that the Michigan tribes probably were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934. Still, those tribes, and two other tribes in the Upper Peninsula that became federally recognized in the 1970s and 1980s may be affected by Carcieri.
Impacts on Michigan Tribes
The Michigan tribes are among the tribes most adversely affected by the Carcieri decision, even though every one of them is a treaty tribe. They are affected in two important ways:
First, each of the tribes potentially affected by Carcieri may be forced to engage in a costly, protracted historical and legal determination by the Interior Department that they were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934. In other words, the tribes may have to expend precious tribal resources to prove that they are eligible tribes in the frivolous lawsuits that are destined to be filed. There are currently 62 non-gaming related Michigan tribes trust applications pending in the Department of Interior now. These applications are for agriculture, housing, public safety, and other infrastructure projects. Many of these projects involve multi-million dollar construction jobs and long-term job creation. Every day that these trust applications are delayed slows down Michigan job growth and economic development. Nationally, a Carcieri fix is estimated to generate 140,000 jobs, many of those in Michigan.
Derek Bailey, the former chairman of my tribe, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, testified before Congress in 2009 about the clear economic consequences of trust land acquisition delays:
As one example, Parcel 45 in Antrim County is a 78-acre parcel that is zoned for residential development by the local township and county. In order to obtain this zoning, we spent 1.5 million dollars of tribal money for roads and for sewer, water, and electrical infrastructure to render the parcels ready for individual housing. The parcel contains two homes owned by tribal members, two Grand Traverse Band rental homes, and 22 empty lots available for Tribal members to construct housing. However, until the land is placed into trust, tribal members cannot obtain the Bureau leases necessary to secure housing financing.
Second, the cloud of Carcieri stifles any development project by potentially affected Michigan tribes. Carcieri increases risks to lenders – the risk that a court finds that a tribe is not eligible because of the Carcieri case, even if low, increases exposure – and that translates to millions of dollars in increased interest rates and occasionally shuts down the project altogether by eliminating the ability of the tribe to borrow money at all. Carcieri has all but killed off investment in Indian country. This issue extends to tribes that may have a Carcieri problem and tribes that already have established economic enterprises. Lower Michigan tribes, especially in southwest Michigan, are enormous economic engines that have generated massive economic growth despite the specter of Carcieri. Relieving these economic engines of this unnecessary burden is only going to improve Michigan’s economy.
In conclusion, fixing Carcieri is costless to American taxpayers and a big win-win for Michigan and Michigan tribes.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.