The case is Wopsock v Natchees. The opinion is unpublished.
wopsock-v-natchees-appellant-brief
wopsock-v-natchees-federal-brief
Indian Reorganization Act
ICT Editorial on Fee to Trust Statute
From ICT:
The federal government’s recent actions involving its authority to make decisions on acquiring land in trust for tribal gaming purposes may inadvertently threaten the authority and duty of the secretary of the Interior Department to take land into trust for Indian tribes.
On April 29, the D.C. Circuit decided an innocuous case involving the secretary of Interior’s decision to take land into trust for the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (also known as the Gun Lake Band). It was the third such opinion in recent years involving Michigan Potawatomi Indian tribes, each brought by well-funded citizens groups opposing Indian gaming. The suits were mere harassment suits, intended to delay rather than prevent the opening of the Potawatomi gaming operations. Each of the suits brought similar claims.
Of import, one claim was that Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, the statute that authorizes the secretary to take land into trust for Indian tribes, was an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority. The first two D.C. Circuit panel decisions (2006 and 2007), involving the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians and the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians, rejected the constitutional challenge to Section 5 without much discussion or dissent. In fact, since 1995, at least three other federal appellate circuits have rejected the same kind of challenge to the statute, so this is unsurprising.
Analysis of Judge Rogers’ Dissent in MichGo v. Kempthorne
Yesterday’s per curiam opinion in MichGo v. Kempthorne, while very, very important to the Gun Lake Band and other Michigan tribes, did not break any new ground. It was the third time in recent years that citizens groups challenged the Secretary of Interior’s decision to take land into trust for gaming purposes for the three southwest Michigan Potawatomi tribes (the other two were TOMAC v. Norton and CETAC v. Kempthorne). Each of the challenges raised NEPA and constitutional claims of very similar character. Each time it was relatively easy for the D.C. Circuit to dispose of these arguments, which some argued bordered on frivolous.
But there is a strong threat to the future of tribal property contained in these cases.
The constitutional challenge is that Section 5 of the IRA (25 U.S.C. 465) is an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional power to the Secretary of Interior. Section 5 allows the Secretary, at his discretion, to acquire land in trust for Indians and Indian tribes. If this discretion is absolute, then it is a violation of the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution. But until yesterday, the constitutional challenge did not garner a single vote in any of the three Potawatomi cases. In fact, though this constitutional challenge has been raised by states and localities repeatedly since the early 1980s, it has not garnered a single vote from a federal judge since 1996, when Justice Scalia dissented from a GVR in United States v. South Dakota, 519 U.S. 919 (1996). The Supreme Court recently granted cert. in Carcieri v. Kempthorne, another of these challenges, but declined to hear the constitutional challenge.
D.C. Circuit Affirms Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish (Gun Lake) Band’s Trust Land Decision
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held the Department of the Interior’s decision to place land into trust for the benefit of the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians near Bradley, Michigan did not violate the National Environmental Protection Act nor did Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.
Other briefs are here.
The Issues in Carcieri v. Kempthorne
The two questions presented in Carcieri v. Kempthorne have significant import for much of Indian Country. But it might be a mistake to conclude the first question (whether the Secretary can take land into trust for tribes that were not federally recognized in 1934, when the Indian Reorganization Act was passed) is an Indian law question. The outcome of that question may turn on the Supreme Court’s decision in National Cable & Communications Assn v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005). Huh?!?!?
Consider the United States’ brief in opposition to the petition for cert:
As this Court held in [Brand X], a “judicial precedent” does not “foreclose an agency from interpreting an ambiguous statute” in a reasonable way that differs from the “court’s opinion as to the best reading” of the statute, unless “the prior court decision holds that its construction follows from the unambiguous terms of the statute and thus leaves no room for agency discretion.” [Brand X, at 982-83.]
Cert Opp at 9.
House Resources Committee Hearing re: New Fee-to-Trust Guidance Announced
From Indianz:
The House Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday, February 27, to discuss the Bush administration’s new land-into-trust policy.
In January, assistant secretary Carl Artman issued guidelines that make it harder for tribes to take land into trust for off-reservation casinos. More scrutiny will be applied to gaming sites that are hundreds of miles away from existing reservations. [See Bryan Newland’s excellent commentary on these new rules here.]
Cal. Miwok v. United States (CA DC)
The D.C. Circuit affirmed the decision of the Secretary of Interior declining to approve the California Miwok Tribe’s constitution on the grounds that only a small number of tribal members participated in its formation, to the exclusion of most others.
NYTs Editorial on Off-Reservation Gaming
From the NYTs:
Good Decision on Tribal Casinos
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne made exactly the right call when he recently denied permission to 11 Indian tribes around the country to acquire more land in order to build casinos.
Department of Interior Changes Fee-to-Trust Process
Last week, the Department of Interior rejected fee-to-trust applications for eleven tribes . Matthew has linked to the rejection letters elsewhere on this site. In rejecting these applications, the DoI has changed the method by which it will review all fee-to-trust applications under 25 C.F.R. Part 151. On January 3rd, Assistant Secretary of Interior Carl Artman , issued a letter to the BIA’s Regional Directors that established that all future applications will be subjected to a “commutable distance” test. In other words, if a tribe seeks to have land placed into trust, even for non-gaming economic development purposes, it must be within a distance where tribal citizens on the existing reservation can reasonably commute to jobs at the site. This had previously not been the case.
Off-Reservation Gaming Letters
Indianz has links to the letters in which the Secretary of Interior rejected proposals to take land into trust for gaming purposes.
This is a significant development. Expect litigation, hopefully smart litigation.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.