Iowa Law Review Note on Possible Carcieri Fixes

Amanda Hettler has published her note “Beyond a Carcieri Fix: The Need for Broader Reform of the Land-Into-Trust Process of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934” in the Iowa Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

: In Carcieri v. Salazar, the Supreme Court held that under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 the Secretary of the Interior can take land into trust only for those tribes that were federally recognized prior to 1934. In light of this decision, many tribes and leaders called for a legislative Carcieri fix. While a fix is necessary, this decision has provided lawmakers with a historic opportunity to reform both the statutory and regulatory frameworks for the land-into-trust program. The current process is inadequate and often leaves state and local governments with little voice in the process. It is often administered inefficiently, harming tribal interests and state and local governmental interests. Congress can and should provide a balanced fix that not only remedies the Carcieri issue, but also reforms the regulations governing this process and sets out new purposes and goals for this program.

Staudenmaier and Khalsa have published an article on Carcieri and taking land into trust in UNLV Gaming Law Journal

The title is A post-Carcieri vocabulary exercise: what if “now” really means “then”? The cite is 1 UNLV Gaming L.J. 39 (2010).

UPDATE: The article is available here.

ASU Indian Law CLE Announcement

“Treaty to Trust to Carcieri:  The Economic Future for Indian Lands CLE Conference”

Hosted by the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at ASU’s Indian Legal Program and the American Indian Policy Institute at ASU.

ASU Tempe Campus, Memorial Union, Ventana Ballroom

April 28 – 8:00 am – 5 pm

April 29 – 8:30 am – 1:00 pm

This conference will present and analyze comtemprary issues that impact tribal land management and strategic development.  It will examine the history of Indian lands, integration of culture into planning, impact of global issues on reservation planning, impact of local issues on tribal land use, and the future of the fee-to-trust process.  Participants will leave the conference with a knowledge that will allow tribes to grow and manage their land base in an economically efficient and culturally sensitive manner.

Continue reading

Seattle U. Conference Materials — “Perspectives on Tribal Land Acquisitions in 2010: A Call to Action”

Eric Eberhard has generously provided the entire conference transcript and materials packet for the Seattle University Center for Indian Law and Policy conference, “Perspectives on Tribal Land Acquisitions in 2010: A Call to Action.”

These materials easily are the finest set of documents relating to the last 30 years of the law and politics of Interior trust acquisitions.

It’s an 862-page document, about 100 MB, but worth the time to download [if you want the CD, please contact Eric or others in the program]

Perspectives on Tribal Land Acquisition in 2010

Student Article Criticizing Carcieri v. Salazar

Sarah Washburn has published Distinguishing Carcieri v. Salazar: Why the Supreme Court Got It Wrong and How Congress and Courts Should Respond to Preserve Tribal and Federal Interests in the IRA’s Trust-Land Provisions in the Washington Law Review.

The abstract:

Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire and hold land in trust for the purpose of providing land for Indians. In 2009, the Supreme Court held in Carcieri v. Salazar that to qualify for the benefits of Section 5, tribes must show they were under federal jurisdiction at the time the IRA was enacted in 1934. The Carcieri Court then determined that the Narragansett tribe, which obtained federal recognition in 1983 under the 25 C.F.R. Part 83 recognition process, had not proven that it was under federal jurisdiction in 1934. Carcieri was the first case in which the Court decoupled jurisdiction from recognition for purposes of the IRA. It could be read to suggest that federal recognition on its own is not enough to prove federal jurisdiction for purposes of the IRA and thus threatens the interests of all tribes; especially at risk are tribes that obtained federal recognition after Congress enacted the IRA. Many of those tribes were simply overlooked and excluded from a list of recognized tribes compiled upon enactment of the IRA, and all of them have demonstrable historical relationships with the federal government. While the Carcieri Court limited its holding to the timing question—that the phrase “now under federal jurisdiction” in the IRA means that a tribe must prove federal jurisdiction existed in 1934—it did not consider how tribes might prove such jurisdiction existed. This Comment argues that tribes recognized after the enactment of the IRA, through either traditional recognition processes or the recognition procedures set forth in 25 C.F.R. Part 83, were necessarily under federal jurisdiction in 1934 and should therefore qualify under the IRA’s Section 5 trust-land provisions. It argues that Congress should respond to Carcieri with legislation clarifying that all federally recognized tribes were necessarily under federal jurisdiction in 1934. It further argues that until Congress acts, courts should allow tribes recognized after 1934 to prove through additional evidence that such jurisdiction existed.

Carcieri, the Word “Now,” and Fortune Cookies in the George Mason Law Review

Jeremy Graboyes has published, “Now, Voyager: Deixis and the Temporal Pragmatics of Statutes,” in the George Mason Law Review.

An excerpt:

You come across a fortune cookie. The fortune inside reads: “The plans you now have are going to succeed.” Unsure when now is, you are left wondering which of your goals will be successful. There are three possibilities. First, now references some fixed point in the past—be it the moment the fortune was first conceived, printed, enclosed in its cookie, or shipped from the factory. All goals you had at that moment will be successful, but you have no guarantees as to goals made later in time, including goals at the time of reading the fortune. Second, now references the moment you first read your fortune. All goals you have at that moment will be successful, but you have no guarantees as to goals you may make later in time. Third, now references any moment you read your fortune. Whenever you read the fortune, no matter how many times you read it, you are guaranteed that all goals you have at that moment will be successful.

A legal journal would be a strange place, indeed, for an article discussing the hermeneutics of fortune cookies. But this interpretive problem has reared its head in the context of statutory interpretation, most recently in Carcieri v. Salazar, decided by the Supreme Court in 2009. This Comment analyzes the interpretive problem now presents in statutory language and gauges methods to resolve the ambiguity. After beginning with the word’s ordinary meaning and finding it to offer no real guidance, this Comment concludes that, absent clear indication of the word’s meaning from legislative history, only a purposive or pragmatic determination can provide a solution. What is significant about now—and what forms the crux of this Comment—is that the resolution of the signification of now relies on what we think a statute really is.

Update on Carcieri Fix?

From How Appealing:

“Tribal-rights advocates seek ‘fix’ in Congress”: The Providence (R.I.) Journal today contains an article that begins, “Tribal-rights advocates came in force to Capitol Hill Tuesday to ask Congress to undo last year’s Supreme Court ruling that made it harder for Native Americans to set their own rules for the use of certain lands — including the Rhode Island parcel at issue in the decision.”

More at Indianz.

New Indian Law Papers on Tribal Same-Sex Marriage & Carcieri

The Boston College Third World Law Journal has published two Indian law papers (hey, third world?!?!):

Mark P. Strasser, Tribal Marriages, Same-Sex Unions, and an Interstate Recognition Conundrum, 30 B.C. Third World L.J. 207 (2010)

and

Melanie Riccobene Jarboe, Collective Rights to Indigenous Land in Carcieri v. Salazar, 30 B.C. Third World L.J. 395 (2010)

Both are available here in pdf.

Opening Briefs in First Major Post-Carcieri Challenge to Fee to Trust–Updated

The case is Patchak v. Salazar (D.C. Cir.) and involves the DOI’s taking of land into trust for the Gun Lake Band of Pottawatomi Indians. The land already is in trust.

Here are the opening briefs:

2010-04-09 Patchak Opening Brief

2010-05-10 Gun Lake Answer Brief (Filed)

02 Proposed Brief Amicus Curiae–NCAI

2010-05-10 U.S. Answer Brief

Lower court materials are here.

Current Status of Carcieri Fix Bills

From THOMAS:

1. H.R.3697 : To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian tribes.
Sponsor: Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] (introduced 10/1/2009)      Cosponsors (5)
Committees: House Natural Resources
Latest Major Action: 11/4/2009 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee Hearings Held.


2. H.R.3742 : To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian tribes.
Sponsor: Rep Kildee, Dale E. [MI-5] (introduced 10/7/2009)      Cosponsors (31)
Committees: House Natural Resources
Latest Major Action: 11/4/2009 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee Hearings Held.


3. S.1703 : A bill to amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian tribes.
Sponsor: Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] (introduced 9/24/2009)      Cosponsors (8)
Committees: Senate Indian Affairs
Latest Major Action: 12/17/2009 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.