fee to trust – Page 18

Updated Briefing in Charles Mix County’s Constitutional Challenge to IRA Section 5

December 30, 2011December 30, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

We posted the opening brief here. Here are the remaining briefs:

Interior Appellee Brief

Charles Mix County Reply Brief

Lower court materials are here.

Sen. Akaka and Rep. Cole on Carcieri Fix: “Create Jobs, Cost Taxpayers Nothing”

November 16, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. An excerpt:

In the Carcieri v. Salazar decision, the Supreme Court reversed 75 years of policy and practice. The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 authorized the secretary of the Interior to take lands into trust for federally recognized tribes. The court threw all tribes into a tailspin of uncertainty by ruling that the secretary did not have the authority to take land into trust for tribes that were not considered “under federal jurisdiction” when the IRA was enacted. The court did not define “under federal jurisdiction,” and in 1934 there wasn’t an official list of federally recognized tribes. The decision creates two classes of tribes: those that can have land in trust and those that cannot. Such a system promises to be both chaotic and unfair.

So much land has been taken from tribes and tribal members — it is unconscionable to make it harder for tribes to gain back their traditional lands. Congress enacted the IRA to protect tribal homelands and to restore land that was previously seized from the native peoples. It is the responsibility of Congress to act when its intentions are misconstrued by the courts, and so we must act now.

And here (hope it is readable):

Continue reading →

Update in Wyandotte Nation v. Salazar

September 27, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

The government has moved to change venue and the State of Kansas has moved to intervene:

Salazar Motion to Transfer Venue

Kansas Motion to Intervene

Opening Brief in Charles Mix County v. DOI — Constitutional Challenge to IRA Section 5

September 21, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Charles Mix County Opening Brief

Lower court materials here.

Eighth Circuit Briefing in South Dakota v. DOI — Sisseton Trust Acquisition Challenge

August 16, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the briefs:

South Dakota Appellant Brief

Federal Govt Brief

Federal Govt Brief Addendum

Sisseton Amicus

South Dakota Reply

The lower court materials are here.

Arizona Law Authorizing Expedited Eminent Domain to Prevent Indian Trust Land Acquisitions Struck Down

July 7, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Tohono O’odham Nation v. City of Glendale (D. Ariz.):

DCT Granting TON Motion for Summary J

TON Motion for Summary J

Glendale and Arizona Motion for Summary J

Federal Court Affirms Interior Trust Acquisition for Karuk Tribe

June 21, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in City of Yreka v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Granting Summary J to Government

City’s Motion for Summary J

DOI Motion for Summary J

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs argue that the regional director failed to consider the impact of gaming uses. (Pls.’ Mot. at 6:26–7:28; Pls.’ Opp’n at 4:22–28.) However, the Secretary need not consider “speculati[ve]” future uses of the land. See City of Lincoln City, 229 F.Supp.2d at 1124; see e.g., South Dakota I, 423 F.3d at 801, 801 n. 9 (holding that “the Secretary was not required to seek out further evidence of possible gaming purposes in light of the Tribe’s repeated assurances that it did not intend to use the land for gaming,” a letter from the then-state governor stating that he had been assured that the tribe would not conduct gaming on the land, and the tribe’s acknowledgment that “if it were later to seek to allow gaming on the land, it would fully comply with the additional application and approval requirements in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721”). As the IBIA’s decision explained the issue:

This fear … is entirely speculative. Nothing in the record suggests that the Tribe contemplates the use of the parcel for gaming. To the contrary, not only does the Tribe admit that the land does not qualify for gaming use under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2719(a), but the Tribe contends that the renovated site is completely developed and could not feasibly or fiscally-responsibly be used for gaming even if the Tribe wanted it to be so used. Additionally Tribal Resolution No. 07–R–160, approved on December 19, 2007, explicitly eschewed the use of the parcel for gaming.

City of Yreka, 51 IBIA at 296–97. Accordingly, the regional director adequately considered the tribe’s purpose for the land.

Preliminary Materials in Clark County, Wash. Challenge to Cowlitz Trust Acquisition

June 16, 2011June 16, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

Cowlitz Motion to Intervene

Federal Defendants Answer.

Here is the complaint.

News article here.

Oklahoma Sup. Ct. Decides Land Title Dispute involving Non-Recognized Tribe

May 19, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the short opinion in Perme v. Southern Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.

An exceprt:

In August 2000, Dynamic Gaming Solutions, Inc. (Dynamic), entered into an agreement with Gary Ridge, who represented himself as the Chief of the Southern Cherokee Nation. Pursuant to said agreement, Dynamic agreed to purchase two pieces of property in Webber Falls, Oklahoma, for the purpose of constructing a casino. Such casino operation was represented to be legally possible, according to Mr. Ridge, because the Southern Cherokee were a legitimate Indian tribe and, therefore, were a sovereign nation able to construct and operate a gaming business. Mr. Perme, who was a principal in Dynamic, agreed, as part of such transaction, to purchase eighty (80) acres for the benefit of Mr. Ridge and his tribe. The subject eighty (80) acres was deeded on August 28, 2000, by Richard A. Hayes and his wife, Margaret A. Hayes, to “The United States of America to be held in trust for the Southern Cherokee Indian Tribe.”