Here is the order in Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley v. Jewell (N.D. Cal.):
Briefs are here.
Northern District of California
Ninth Circuit Decides Redding Rancheria v. Jewell (Affirming Section 20 Regulations)
Here is the opinion. The court’s summary:
The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the federal government insofar as it upheld the Secretary of the Interior’s denial of the application of Redding Rancheria (the Tribe) to operate multiple casinos on restored lands, and reversed in part and remanded to the agency for consideration of the Tribe’s proposal to close its existing Tribal gaming operation upon construction of a new facility.
The Secretary denied the Tribe’s request to take into trust a substantial parcel the Tribe recently acquired for the construction and operation of a new gambling casino. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act generally banned gaming on lands that tribes acquired after its enactment in 1988, but created an exception for tribes with restored lands. The agency denied the Tribe’s application because, at the time it was submitted, the Tribe was operating a modest casino on land it acquired earlier. The district court granted summary judgment to the government because the Tribe was seeking to operate multiple casinos, which the applicable regulations sought to prevent. While the application was pending, the Tribe advised the agency that it was willing to close down its original casino once the new one was in operation.
The panel held that the regulation at issue was reasonable, and the Secretary reasonably implemented the restored lands exception. The panel further held that the Indian canon (which provides that where a statute is unclear, it must be liberally interpreted in favor of Indians) did not apply in the circumstances of this case. The panel also held that the Secretary’s denial of the Tribe’s application was not inconsistent with prior agency practice, and was not arbitrary and capricious.
The panel held that the agency should have considered the Tribe’s alternative offer to move all gaming to the new casino, and vacated in part the district court’s summary
judgment with instructions to remand to the agency to address the issue.Judge Callahan concurred in parts I, II, and III of the majority’s opinion; and agreed that the regulation at issue was reasonable, the Indian canon did not apply, and there was no unexplained change in agency policy. Judge Callahan dissented from part IV of the opinion because the Tribe did not fairly prompt the Secretary to consider its alleged offer to move its casino and did not ask the district court to consider the alleged offer to remove the casino. Judge Callahan would not reverse in part and remand for further consideration.
Ninth Circuit Materials in Cloverdale Rancheria v. Interior
Big Lagoon En Banc Oral Argument Materials
Ninth Circuit to Video Stream En banc Arguments in Big Lagoon Rancheria Gaming Matter (Sept. 17, 2014)
Here is the news release. An excerpt:
On Wednesday, September 17, 2014, beginning at 10 a.m., the court will hear oral arguments in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California, in which the state appeals the summary judgment by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in favor of Big Lagoon Rancheria, an Indian reservation near Eureka. The lower court determined that the state violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by failing to negotiate in good faith for a tribal-state gaming compact.
Here is the panel: Alex Kozinski, Harry Pregerson, Stephen Reinhardt, Diarmuid O’Scannlain, Susan Graber, William Fletcher, Richard Paez, Jay S. Bybee, Milan Smith, Morgan Christen, and Jacqueline Nguyen
En banc materials here.
Panel materials here.
Split Ninth Circuit Panel Affirms Dismissal of Challenge to Repatriation of “La Jolla Skeletons” to Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee
Here is the opinion in White v. University of California.
From the court’s syllabus:
The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action under the Native Graves Protection and Repatriation Act on the basis that the affected tribes and their representatives were indispensable parties and could not be joined in the action.
The action concerned the “La Jolla remains,” two human skeletons discovered during an archaeological excavation on the property of the Chancellor’s official residence at the University of California-San Diego. The tribes claimed the right to compel repatriation of the La Jolla remains to one of the Kumeyaay Nation’s member tribes. Repatriation was opposed by the plaintiffs, University of California professors who wished to study the remains. The professors sought a declaration that the remains were not “Native American” within the meaning of NAGPRA, which provides a framework for establishing ownership and control of newly discovered Native American remains and funerary objects, as well as cultural items already held by certain federally funded museums and educational institutions.
The panel held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing to bring suit because if the La Jolla remains were repatriated,
the plaintiffs would suffer a concrete injury that was fairly traceable to the challenged action. In addition, this injury was likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.The panel held that NAGPRA does not abrogate tribal sovereign immunity because Congress did not unequivocally express that purpose. The panel held that the “Repatriation Committee,” a tribal organization, was entitled to tribal sovereign immunity as an “arm of the tribe.” In addition, the Repatriation Committee did not waive its sovereign immunity by filing a separate lawsuit against the University or by incorporating under California law.
The panel held that the tribes and the Repatriation Committee were necessary parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(1) and were indispensable under Rule 19(b). In addition, the “public rights” exception to Rule 19 did not apply. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the action.
Dissenting, Judge Murguia agreed with the majority that the plaintiffs had Article III standing, that NAGPRA did not abrogate the sovereign immunity of the tribes, and that the Repatriation Committee was entitled to sovereign immunity. She would hold, however, that the Committee was not a necessary and indispensable party because it was neither necessary nor indispensable to resolution of the question whether the University properly determined that the La Jolla remains were Native American within the meaning of NAGPRA.
Briefs are here.
Ninth Circuit to Re-Hear Big Lagoon Rancheria Appeal Sept. 17, 2014
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. Jewell (ISDEAA Law Enforcement Funding)
Complaint Challenging New 30-Year Eagle Permit Rule
Here is the complaint in Shearwater v. Ashe (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs are challenging a final nationwide regulation promulgated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS” or “Service”) and the U.S. Department of the Interior (“DOI”) on December 9, 2013 that “extend[ed] the maximum term for programmatic permits” to kill or otherwise “take” bald and golden eagles from five years to thirty years. 78 Fed. Reg. 73704. This major rule change – the “thirty-year eagle take rule” – applies to industrial activities of all Case5:14-cv-02830 Document1 Filed06/19/14 Page1 of 23 kinds that incidentally take federally protected eagles in the course of otherwise lawful activities
but, as acknowledged by the Service, was promulgated specifically to respond to the wind power industry’s desire to facilitate the expansion of wind energy projects in areas occupied by eagles. Id. at 73709. However, the rule was adopted in flagrant violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370f (“NEPA”) because the Service did not prepare any document analyzing the environmental impacts of the rule change, as required by NEPA and its implementing regulations. In addition, the rule change violates the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d (“BGEPA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), because the rule subverts the basic eagle protection purposes of BGEPA and eliminates crucial procedural and other safeguards for eagle populations without any adequate explanation. Accordingly, the regulation should be vacated and remanded to Defendants for compliance with federal law.
Ninth Circuit Grants En Banc Review in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California
Here:
2014 0611 Order Granting Petition for Rehearing En Banc
En banc petition here. Supporting amicus briefs here.
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.