Indigenous Law and Policy Center Occasional Papers — Updated

We’ve posted several recent papers. Here is the website for all of our papers dating back to 2006.

2009-01
Advising – and Suing – Tribal Officials: On the Scope of Tribal Official Immunity by Matthew L.M. Fletcher and Kathryn E. Fort
2009-02
The Ethics of Pushing the Envelope in Indian Law Cases by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
2009-03
Supreme Court Reversal of Carcieri: Implications for Reaffirmed Michigan Indian Tribes by Novaline D. Wilson
2009-04
The Origins of the Indian Child Welfare Act: A Survey of the Legislative History by Matthew L.M Fletcher

Written Testimony in House Resources Hearing on Fee to Trust

From the House Resources Committee:

Witnesses:

Ms. Colette Routel
Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Michigan Law School
Assistant Professor, William Mitchell College of Law

Mr. Michael J. Anderson
Partner
AndersonTuell, LLP

Mr. Donald Craig Mitchell, Esq.
Anchorage, AK

Opening Statement
Chairman Nick J. Rahall, II


Continue reading

Is There a Money Claim Against the US Post-Carcieri?

I see now that the Dept. of Interior is (un)officially segregating Indian tribes for purposes of trust acquisitions (see email reported on Indianz), shutting down (apparently) some trust applications and allowing others to proceed, that the first impacts of Carcieri have reached Indian Country, as expected.

Maybe it’s worth revisiting what the Supreme Court did in Carcieri from a slightly different point of view. Arguably, a money claim against the United States for failure to properly recognize certain Indian tribes in 1934 has now accrued.

Consider. The Court has effectively created classes of Indian tribes, as seemingly established by the email:

Continue reading

MSU Working Paper 2009-03 — Carcieri’s Impact on Michigan Tribes

Novaline Wilson (MSU Law ’08) has written a nice paper on the impact of Carcieri v. Salazar on Michigan tribes, many of whom (8 out of 12) were not federally recognized in 1934. It is here. Note that she wrote this before Carcieri was decided. An excerpt:

The Supreme Court must consider unique historical circumstances of Michigan Indian tribes before effectively barring these administratively aggrieved tribes from the federal land-to-trust process. Michigan Indian tribes have a distinct political history as treaty tribes that were illegally administratively terminated in a “situation [that] is not simply an injustice of major proportions, it is a travesty of logic that boggles the rational mind.” Carcieri was correctly decided at the administrative appeals level, by the District Court, and by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. This case is not only without merit, it directly contravenes the BIA’s authority to fulfill their federally mandated trust obligations to tribes. The BIA has to administer the same general federal fiduciary obligations to all tribes, regardless of the year the federal government finally got around to “formally recognizing” tribes. As demonstrated through Michigan Indian tribal history, an outright bar on land-to-trust for those tribes not recognized in 1934 would not only eviscerate fundamental Indian law and administrative law principles, it would demonstrate deliberate ignorance of hundreds of years of American history between Indian tribes and the federal government.

ICT on the Politics of the Carcieri Fix (and the Dictionary Act)

From ICT:

WASHINGTON – Excited rumbles trickled through Indian country after a letter to the editor was published recently in Indian Country Today, asking whether a little known legislative doctrine could help reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling in Carcieri v. Salazar.

The writer of the letter, lawyer Joseph E. Bernstein, noted that the Dictionary Act modifies the present tense in all federal statutes to include the future tense, unless the context indicates otherwise.

Given that the court seemingly ruled in contradiction to the law – deciding that the phrase “now under federal jurisdiction” of the Indian Reorganization Act refers to those tribes that were under federal jurisdiction only when the IRA was enacted in 1934 – Bernstein asked whether tribal and federal lawyers could get a rehearing.

Department of Justice lawyers arguing the case hadn’t mentioned the Dictionary Act in their arguments, nor had tribal legal experts, so Bernstein thought they might be able to raise a new point of law focused on the future tense language of the law.

Could it be that simple? Could there really be a quick legal fix to help tribes prevail after the Supreme Court upended many tribal, federal and legal understandings of the IRA by restricting the BIA’s longstanding tribal land into trust process? If not a legal fix, couldn’t Congress just make a fast fix?

Legal and legislative experts say the only thing simple regarding those questions are the answers to them: No, no, and maybe not.
Continue reading

Carcieri Fix Might Not Be So Easy

I couldn’t really do it in 800 words, but my ICT editorial necessarily left out several points I still want to make about Carcieri and its impact. Here is the first. Others will follow.

The Carcieri fix will not be an easy sell. Tribal interests have relatively recently “fixed” a Supreme Court decision by asking Congress for help — the so-called Duro fix. But consider how many other “fixes” never got off the ground: (1) Oliphant Fix (numerous incarnations); (2) Seminole Tribe Fix; and (3) Hicks Fix.

Why did the Duro Fix get through while the others did not? First, the only constituency that would have opposed the Duro Fix was nonmember Indians, the most famous (later on) being Russell Means, who traveled from city to city arguing against tribal criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians after he got arrested at Navajo. Second, state and local governments had some general interest in limiting tribal criminal jurisdiction (the same as they do with jurisdiction over non-Indians) but the interest is just that — general. And a bit disingenous in a lot of places in the country.

Continue reading

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

Initial Reaction to Carcieri Opinion

I took a deep breath and drafted this initial review of the opinion. The deep breath was to avoid a knee-jerk response here like the one I had after the Plains Commerce Bank decision last year.

The Supreme Court handed down its opinion in the case of Carcieri v. Kempthorne (Salazar), which involed the Narragansett Indian Tribe’s petition to have land placed into trust by the Secretary of Interior. The Court ruled that the Secretary of Interior could not place land into trust for the Tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act, because the Tribe was not recognized at the time the IRA was passed in 1934 (the Narragansett Tribe was finally acknowledged in 1983, after a century-long effort).

The decision was 6-3 in favor of the Governor of Rhode Island, although Justice Stevens was the only justice to fully dissent from the opinion, and drafted an opinion in support of the Tribe.

The IRA states that the Secretary of Interior may place land into trust for tribes “now under Federal jurisdiction.” According to the Court, use of the word “now” means that this provision only applies to tribes under federal jurisdiction at the time the IRA was passed.

You can find the opinion and background materials here.

A couple of quick thoughts on this case:

Continue reading

Carcieri v. Salazar Goes Against US and Tribes

Here is the opinion.