Updated Materials in Challenge to North Fork Casino Proposal

Here are updated materials in Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of Interior (D.D.C.):

85 Motion to Supplement Admin Record

86 North Fork Rancheria Answer

87 Federal Defendants Answer

Amended complaint here.

Second Amended Complaint in Stand Up for California v. Dept. of Interior

Here:

84 Second Amended Complaint

Prior post on this matter here. The district court previously had stayed the case:

77 DCT Stay Order

A related state court complaint is here.

Amici Supporting Big Lagoon Rancheria’s En Banc Petition

Here:

Big Lagoon v California – 64 – US brief

Big Lagoon v California – 67-2 – NCAI USET brief

Big Lagoon v California – 68 – CILS Ltr

The en banc petition is here.

The panel materials are here.

NCAI Release on Interior’s Carcieri Opinion

Here:

NCAI Encouraged By DOI Opinion On Carcieri;

Reaffirms Need For A Robust Fix That Ensures Tribal Equality

WASHINGTON, DC – The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) appreciates the efforts of the Department of the Interior in issuing a new legal opinion and working to provide further guidance in defining the tribes “under federal jurisdiction” as of 1934 in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2009 Carcieri v. Salazar decision regarding the Indian Reorganization Act. The opinion, however, highlights the need for Congress to make clear that all Indian tribes are under federal constitutional authority to regulate.

The Indian Reorganization Act was enacted in 1934 to restore Indian tribal governments and tribal lands after the failed federal policies of termination and assimilation. The Act ensured that the tribal way of life would continue and thrive. In its Carcieri decision, the Supreme Court determined that the Secretary of the Interior does not have authority to take land into trust for tribes that were not “under federal jurisdiction” prior to 1934. However, the Court did not define what it means for a tribe to have been “under federal jurisdiction” as of the enactment of the IRA.

According to the DOI opinion, M-37029, the term “under federal jurisdiction” is ambiguous and undefined, therefore the DOI has the authority to determine which tribes do and do not fall under the statute and will proceed to make decisions about trust agreements accordingly. In previous legal work, NCAI has taken the view that the Constitution devotes authority in Indian affairs to the federal government and that the only question is whether an Indian tribe exists, as in the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Sandoval in 1913.

Of the opinion, NCAI President Brian Cladoosby stated:

 

“NCAI is pleased the Department of the Interior has addressed one of the many problems created by the unclear and damaging language in the Carcieri decision. It is encouraging to see a federal agency work to strengthen the trust relationship – particularly the DOI, as one of their fundamental tasks is fulfilling the United States’ trust responsibility to tribal nations.

 

The opinion is encouraging, but Carcieri still stands. Tribes need a permanent, legislative solution and NCAI will continue to work towards a clean Carcieri fix. All tribes must be treated equally but as long as Carcieri is upheld, that is not possible and that is unacceptable.”

 

The Carcieri decision has affected all tribes – even those “under federal jurisdiction” as of 1934. Processing delays in trust land applications, additional bureaucratic red tape for potential economic investors, and confusion over legal jurisdiction are just a few of the consequences.

More importantly, the decision is a direct attack on tribal sovereignty. Indian trust land is the foundation of tribal economies and the only real federal protection of tribal authority from state and local governments.

NCAI is committed to the preservation of tribal sovereignty and ensuring a robust nation-to-nation between tribes and the federal government. We will continue to support and work with tribal leaders to advance these priorities.

Interior Opinion on Meaning of “Under Federal Jurisdiction”

Here:

DOI Carcieri M opinion – M 37029

Here is the link to Interior opinions.

Big Lagoon Rancheria En Banc Petition

Here:

Petition for Panel Rehearing

The panel materials are here.

Interior Board of Indian Appeals Rejects Cherokee Nation’s Challenge to BIA Trust Acquisition for United Keetoowah Band

Here is the opinion:

Cherokee Nation v Acting Eastern Oklahoma Regional Director BIA

News coverage here.

Split Ninth Circuit Panel Reverses Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California

Here is today’s opinion. The court’s syllabus:

Reversing the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that the State of California did not violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by failing to negotiate in good faith for a tribal-state gaming compact with Big Lagoon Rancheria.

The panel held that a tribe must have jurisdiction over “Indian lands” in order to file suit to compel negotiations under IGRA. Specifically, the tribe must have jurisdiction over the Indian lands upon which the gaming activity is to be conducted.

The panel held that although the State’s objection to the “Indian lands” requirement could be waived because it was not a matter of subject matter jurisdiction, the State preserved this issue for review. The panel held that the parcel at issue was not Indian lands, which include lands held in trust for a tribe, because under Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009), the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ authority to take lands in trust for a tribe extends only to tribes under federal jurisdiction in 1934. Because Big Lagoon was not such a tribe, the BIA lacked authority to purchase the parcel in trust for Big Lagoon in 1994. Accordingly, Big Lagoon could not demand negotiations to conduct gaming on the parcel, and it could not sue to compel negotiations if the State fails to negotiate in good faith.

Dissenting, Judge Rawlinson wrote that the parcel was Indian lands under IGRA because under Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gaming, 531 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2008), the State could not collaterally attack the BIA’s designation of trust lands years after its administrative and legal remedies had expired.

Briefs are here.

Written Testimony in SCIA Hearing on Carcieri

Here:

Briefs Filed in Grand Ronde et al v. Jewell

Grand Ronde’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Grand Ronde Exhibit One
Clark County et al Motion for Summary Judgment

Previous coverage of the case here.