First Circuit Briefs in Littlefield v. Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribe


Mashpee Brief

Littlefield Answer Brief

Mashpee Reply

Prior posts here.

Mashpee Wampanoag Litigation

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe of Massachusetts is currently involved in federal litigation against the U.S. Department of Interior, challenging its decision that the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 did not bring it under federal jurisdiction.

See the filings below:

Doc 1 – Complaint

Doc 15 – Intervenors’ Motion to Transfer Venue

Doc 17 – Memo in Opp to Motion to Transfer Venue

Doc 20 – Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer

Doc 21 – Order on Motion to Transfer

Interior Loses Mashpee Wampanoag Trust Acquisition Challenge

Here are the materials in Littlefield v. Dept. of Interior (D. Mass.):

56 Interior Motion for Summary J

59 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary J

69 City of Taunton Amicus Brief

81 DOI Supplemental Brief

82 Plaintiffs Supplemental Brief

83 USET Amicus Brief

86 Plaintiffs Response to 83

87 DCT Order

BIA’s Brief in Support of Partial Dismissal in Mashpee Wampanoag Carcieri Challenge

Here are the materials, so far, in Littlefield et. al. v. U.S. Department of Interior (D. Mass.):

Doc. 1 – Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Doc. 10 – United States’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Partial Dismissal


Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action seeks a declaration that the IRA, enacted over eighty years ago, is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs specifically allege that the IRA’s provision authorizing the Secretary to acquire land in trust on behalf of federally-recognized Indian tribes somehow reflects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. This legal question, however, has long been resolved against Plaintiffs by all courts to consider it, including the First Circuit in a decision binding on this Court. Federal courts have held, consistently and repeatedly, that the Secretary’s authority to acquire land in trust under the IRA does not violate the United States Constitution because there are sufficient intelligible principles provided in the statute and its legislative history to guide the Secretary’s discretion whether to acquire land in trust on behalf of a tribe. Moreover, it has been over 85 years since the Supreme Court invalidated any statute on the grounds of excessive delegation of legislative authority. The Supreme Court in fact has only found two statues to be a violation of the non-delegation doctrine, neither of which are comparable to the statute at issue here. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action.

BIA Issues Land into Trust Decision for Mashpee Wampanoag


WASHINGTON, D.C. – Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Kevin K. Washburn today issued a decision approving a request by the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe to acquire 170 acres of land into trust in the town of Mashpee, Mass., for tribal governmental, cultural and conservation purposes, and 151 acres in trust in the City of Taunton, Mass., for the purpose of constructing and operating a gaming facility and resort. The lands in both Mashpee and Taunton will become the tribe’s first lands held in trust.

Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to 2009 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Election

Here are the materials in Ramos v. Bureau of Indian Affairs (D. Mass.):

1 Complaint

9 Amended Complaint

11 BIA Motion to Dismiss

12 Ramos Response

15 BIA Reply

22 DCT Order Dismissing Claim

An excerpt:

The Plaintiffs, enrolled members of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (“Tribe”), have sued the Defendants, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”); Michael Black, Director of the BIA; Mike Smith, Deputy Director; Franklin Keel, Regional Director; and Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary (collectively, the “Defendants”) seeking an injunction requiring the Defendants to conduct an investigation into the Tribe’s 2009 election and to take action to ensure that the Tribe’s elections are properly conducted. D. 9 at 10. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim and failure to join a necessary party. D. 10. Because the Court concludes that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, the Court ALLOWS the motion to dismiss.

Judge Gorton Holds Massachusetts Gaming Act Passes Constitutional Scrutiny

Here are the materials in KG Urban v. Patrick (D. Mass.):

140 Mass Gaming Commission Motion for Summary J

143 KG Urban Motion for Summary J

151 KG Urban Opposition

152 Mass Gaming Commission Opposition

153 Mass Gaming Commission Reply

160 DCT Opinion

News coverage here.

Prior posts in this case are here, here, here, and here. First Circuit materials are here.