Fixing Carcieri for Michigan

Fixing Carcieri for Michigan

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Congressional action to correct the Supreme Court’s decision in Carcieri v. Salazar would cost American taxpayers nothing and would be an enormous win for Michigan tribes and the Michigan economy. Carcieri, a decision that undermines the certainty of the Department of Interior’s authority to acquire land in trust for some Indian tribes, makes borrowing money for several Michigan tribes more difficult and more expensive – for some Michigan tribes, the price to borrow money for capital growth increases by millions in increased interest or even the inability to borrow. In short, Carcieri costs the Michigan economy jobs and economic growth.

The Carcieri Decision

The Carcieri decision held that the Department of Interior could not take land into trust for the benefit of the Narragansett Indian Tribe in Rhode Island under Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (“IRA”), a statute that authorizes the Secretary of Interior to do so for any Indian tribe. The IRA’s definition of “Indian tribe” includes any tribe “now under federal jurisdiction.” The Interior Department had interpreted the IRA to authorize trust land acquisitions for tribes under federal jurisdiction at the time of the application, using federal recognition as a proxy for federal jurisdiction. But the Supreme Court held that the Narragansetts were under state jurisdiction at the time of the enactment of the IRA in 1934, and so Interior could not take land into trust for them.

The Department of Interior had “administratively terminated” several Michigan Indian tribes – all of the six Ottawa and Potawatomi tribes now federally recognized – in the late 19th century. These tribes are “treaty tribes,” meaning that they have an ongoing treaty relationship with the federal government that has never been extinguished by Congress. The Sixth Circuit has recognized that “administrative termination” was an illegal administrative act, and the concurrences and dissent in Carcieri also recognized that the Michigan tribes probably were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934. Still, those tribes, and two other tribes in the Upper Peninsula that became federally recognized in the 1970s and 1980s may be affected by Carcieri.

Impacts on Michigan Tribes

The Michigan tribes are among the tribes most adversely affected by the Carcieri decision, even though every one of them is a treaty tribe. They are affected in two important ways:

First, each of the tribes potentially affected by Carcieri may be forced to engage in a costly, protracted historical and legal determination by the Interior Department that they were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934. In other words, the tribes may have to expend precious tribal resources to prove that they are eligible tribes in the frivolous lawsuits that are destined to be filed. There are currently 62 non-gaming related Michigan tribes trust applications pending in the Department of Interior now. These applications are for agriculture, housing, public safety, and other infrastructure projects. Many of these projects involve multi-million dollar construction jobs and long-term job creation. Every day that these trust applications are delayed slows down Michigan job growth and economic development. Nationally, a Carcieri fix is estimated to generate 140,000 jobs, many of those in Michigan.

Derek Bailey, the former chairman of my tribe, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, testified before Congress in 2009 about the clear economic consequences of trust land acquisition delays:

As one example, Parcel 45 in Antrim County is a 78-acre parcel that is zoned for residential development by the local township and county. In order to obtain this zoning, we spent 1.5 million dollars of tribal money for roads and for sewer, water, and electrical infrastructure to render the parcels ready for individual housing. The parcel contains two homes owned by tribal members, two Grand Traverse Band rental homes, and 22 empty lots available for Tribal members to construct housing. However, until the land is placed into trust, tribal members cannot obtain the Bureau leases necessary to secure housing financing.

Second, the cloud of Carcieri stifles any development project by potentially affected Michigan tribes. Carcieri increases risks to lenders – the risk that a court finds that a tribe is not eligible because of the Carcieri case, even if low, increases exposure – and that translates to millions of dollars in increased interest rates and occasionally shuts down the project altogether by eliminating the ability of the tribe to borrow money at all. Carcieri has all but killed off investment in Indian country. This issue extends to tribes that may have a Carcieri problem and tribes that already have established economic enterprises. Lower Michigan tribes, especially in southwest Michigan, are enormous economic engines that have generated massive economic growth despite the specter of Carcieri. Relieving these economic engines of this unnecessary burden is only going to improve Michigan’s economy.

In conclusion, fixing Carcieri is costless to American taxpayers and a big win-win for Michigan and Michigan tribes.

Petition for Cert in Young v. Fitzpatrick

Questions presented:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Whether Police Officers, Employed by the Puyallup Indian Tribe, But Trained, Certified, and Cross-Commissioned by the State of Washington, and Armed, Equipped, and Provisioned by the United States, Are Subject to the Constitution, U.S. Civil Rights Laws, and State Tort Law;

2. Whether the Shelter or Conceal Clause of the Treaty of Medicine Creek, and Additional Sources of Federal and State Law, Preempts Any Claims of Qualified Immunity by Individual Puyallup Tribal Police Officer Defendants in a Suit for Violation of the Constitution, U.S. Civil Rights Laws, and State Tort Law.

Cert Petition

WA App Ct Decision (WA Supreme Court Decision denied petition for review)

Previous coverage here.

New Yorker Profile on the Supreme Court and Judicial Independence

Here.

An excerpt:

Federally, few rulings have wreaked such havoc on the political process as the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, whereby the Roberts Court struck down much of the McCain-Feingold Act, which placed restrictions on corporate and union funding of political campaigns. Stevens, in his dissent, warned that “a democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.”
That, in the end, is the traffic to worry about. If not only legislators but judges serve at the pleasure of lobbyists, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers. Law will be commerce. And money will be king.

Continue reading

Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief in Corboy v. Louie

Here.

Interesting brief, filed in response to the SG’s invitation brief recommending denial of the petition. I wonder how many of these briefs directly insult the SG’s office. This one skirts the edge of insult, I think, questioning the candor of the SG.

The invitation brief is here. The petition is here.

Salon: Muppet Theory and the Supreme Court

Here. An excerpt:

Think about your basic Muppet workplaces: Be it “Pigs in Space,” Oscar’s garbage can, or producing a hit Broadway show in 19 hours, it’s always crucial to get the ratio of Order-to-Chaos exactly right. One possible explanation for the blossoming dysfunctionality of the current Supreme Court is that the Order Muppets have all but taken over. With exception of Justices Breyer and Antonin Scalia, the Order Muppets are running the show completely. (The jury is still out on whether Elena Kagan may prove a Chaos Muppet.) Remember the old rule of thumb: Too many Order Muppets means no cookies for anyone.

Opening Merits Stage Briefs in Fisher v. University of Texas

Here (briefs in red below are those that mention Elizabeth Warren):

Merit Briefs

Amicus Briefs

SG Recommends Denial of Cert Petition in Corboy v. Louie

From SCOTUSBlog (brief here and embedded in the post):

Corboy v. Louie is a challenge to a Hawaii tax exemption that is available only to those who meet the state’s definition of “native Hawaiians.”  The Hawaii Supreme Court dismissed the case on the ground that the petitioners (who are not native Hawaiians) lacked standing.  The federal government agreed with the respondents that certiorari is not warranted, for several reasons.  First, it regarded the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision as resting on an adequate and independent state ground.  Second, and in any event, it alleged that the petitioners would not have standing under Article III.  Third, and finally, the Court does not need to review the petitioners’ equal protection claim, which is not properly presented and could be affected by recent legal and political developments in Hawaii.

Petition stage briefs are here.

United States v. Samish Cert Petition

Here:

US v Samish Cert Petition

Samish–Pet App (final)

Questions presented:

1. Whether the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1), or Indian Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1505, grants the Court of Federal Claims subject-matter jurisdiction over an Indian Tribe’s claim for money damages against the United States, based on the United States’ purported violation of sources of law that do not themselves mandate a damages remedy for their violation.

2. Whether the United States may be required to pay damages for failing to provide an Indian Tribe with a statutorily defined portion of a statutory fund, where Congress enacted limited appropriations for that fund and those appropriations were exhausted over a decade before the tribe filed its action for money damages.

Lower court materials are here.

Circuit Splits Blog on the Supreme Court’s “One Percenter” Docket

Here.

Old news for faithful TT readers. 🙂

Supreme Court Denies Cert in Nielson v. Ketchum (Cherokee ICWA Case)

Here is today’s order list.

Our prior post on the case is here.