Here are the materials and documents in the matter of Butte County, CA v. Chadhouri et al, 08-cv-00519 (D.C. July 15, 2016):
Doc. 125 – United States’ Reply in Support of its Cross Motion for Summary Judgment
Doc. 128 – Memorandum-Decision and Order
Link to previous coverage here.
We reported on the lower court case, a challenge to off-reservation fee to trust for gaming purposes, here.
Briefs:
The case is in the D.C. District Court and involves the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria. The district court holds that GTB v. U.S. Att’y is the “leading case” in the area! An excerpt:
The court agrees with Defendants that the County relies on too restrictive an interpretation of the IGRA in support of its contention that the Chico Parcel cannot qualify as a “restoration of lands.” The County contends that the term “restoration of lands” should be interpreted as including only a restored tribe’s former rancheria. But the IGRA does not define “restoration of lands”; therefore, courts have held it to be ambiguous and interpreted it broadly. See, e.g., City of Roseville v. Norton, 348 F.3d at 1020, 1026-27 (D.C.Cir.2003). If a broad interpretation is permissible, it certainly is in order here considering that the Tribe’s former rancheria, the Chico Rancheria, is no longer available for restoration because the City of Chico and the University have subsumed it. Accordingly, the Tribe sought to acquire lands as near as possible to its former Rancheria and, according to the OGC and agencies, within its original ancestral homeland, the Chico Parcel. Applying the Grand Traverse II factors and City of Roseville in light of the administrative record, the agency decisions must stand because they considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the administrative record and their conclusions. See Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 518 F.3d at 919.
The materials:
Turtle Talk 