Commentary on the Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs Oral Argument

In all of the hullabaloo surrounding Carcieri and Navajo Nation II, you may have forgotten that the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a claim involving the Native Hawaiians, Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Like the other two cases, the Supreme Court very clearly granted cert in this case in order to reverse. The only real discussion in this case was how far the Court would go in reversing.

The Hawaii Supreme Court held below that a Congressional apology resolution from a few years back had legal effect sufficient to prevent the State from selling Native Hawaiian trust lands. The question presented has to do whether the apology resolution has that legal effect.

The petitioner’s argument started right off with the moderate wing of the Court assuming that the apology resolution has no legal effect. They pressed the Hawaii Attorney General for reasons why the Court should do anything more than simply vacate and remand. In short, the question presented is already answered, probably 9-0.The only real question is whether to allow the Hawaii SCT to reconsider their decision under state law grounds alone, or whether to foreclose even that possibility by holding that federal law prevents the State from having a trust relationship to Native Hawaiians vis a vis this land.

Continue reading

ICT Editorial on Carcieri

From ICT:

Decision’s in. ‘Now’ begins work to fix Carcieri

The Supreme Court’s Feb. 24 decision in Carcieri v. Salazar is a significant defeat for the Narragansett Tribe, and perhaps for hundreds of other Indian tribes not federally recognized in 1934. Carcieri seemingly overturns the Department of Interior’s 70-year-plus practice of taking land into trust for Indian tribes federally recognized after 1934. But while the decision will be disruptive and expensive for Indian tribes affected, it might not be utterly devastating.

Carcieri held that the secretary has no authority to take land into trust for the Narragansetts because they are not an eligible Indian tribe as defined by the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. Only tribes that meet the definition of “Indian tribe” under the IRA are eligible for the fee to trust benefit; in other words, according to the court, tribes that were “under federal jurisdiction” on June 1, 1934. The secretary of the interior did not recognize the Narragansett Tribe as an Indian tribe at that time, and so the court held that the secretary may not take land into trust for the tribe under the IRA. The court’s cramped reading of “now” is the worst kind of judicial formalism, like that recently critiqued by Professor Alex Skibine in the American Indian Law Review.

It is important to parse out exactly which tribes – and which land parcels – are affected by this decision. First, Indian lands already in trust with the secretary of the interior are safe, because the United States already owns the land and is immune from a suit seeking to reverse a fee to trust acquisition. That means tribes operating business enterprises on trust land will be protected by the federal government’s immunity. Second, Indian tribes such as the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians with special statutes authorizing the secretary to take land into trust for them, usually as a result of a congressional recognition act or land claims settlement act, also are exempted.

The Supreme Court’s Feb. 24 decision in Carcieri v. Salazar is a significant defeat for the Narragansett Tribe, and perhaps for hundreds of other Indian tribes not federally recognized in 1934.

Interestingly, the final paragraph in Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion – a major litigation-starter – appears to assume that the Carcieri case is limited to its facts, and therefore only applies to the Narragansett Tribe. The concurring opinions from Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter, as well as Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissent, suggest that numerous other tribes that can demonstrate that they were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934, even if “the Department did not know it at the time,” in Breyer’s words. The concurring and dissenting justices named several tribes that fit into this category, including the Stillaguamish Tribe, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, and the Mole Lake Tribe. In short, according to Justice Breyer, a tribe that could show it was party to a treaty with the United States, the beneficiary of a pre-1934 congressional appropriation, or enrollment with the Indian Office as of 1934. The Narragansett Tribe, according to the court, was under the jurisdiction of Rhode Island in 1934, not the Department of the Interior, and so they are not eligible.

These exceptions to the general Carcieri rule mean that Indian tribes in the twilight of the concurring opinions may be engaged in expensive litigation to prove that they were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934. Such litigation may require the heavy expenditure of funds for expert witnesses, forcing some tribes to undergo the strange and humiliating process of earning a kind of federal recognition all over again. In the coming weeks, the Obama administration should take the lead in defining what “under federal jurisdiction” means to blunt the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Obama administration should take the lead in defining what “under federal jurisdiction” means to blunt the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Regardless, now is the time for Indian country to test the waters in Washington D.C., to see if the Obama administration is serious about change and to press the Democratic-controlled Congress for a Carcieri “fix.” It might not take much legislation, just a quick rewording of the definition of Indian tribe in the IRA to remove the word “now.” The administration and Congress may be sympathetic, given that the Roberts Court seems to go out of its way to punish Indian tribes. A Carcieri “fix” pitched as merely reversing a bad Supreme Court decision would not work a major change on the federal-tribal-state relationship because it would merely be restoring the pre-Carcieri state of affairs that had existed for over seven decades.

For the Narragansett Tribe, this decision is yet another slap in the face to a tribe that has done nothing wrong but what it can to survive. For six justices, the Narragansetts did not pass the test of “federal jurisdiction,” a test that no one could have known in 1934 they would have been required to pass. Nothing could be more arbitrary and capricious.

Matthew L.M. Fletcher is associate professor at the Michigan State University College of Law and director of the Northern Plains Indian Law Center. He is an enrolled citizen of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians.

Commissioner of Public Lands v. New Mexico Cert Petition

This new filing (commissioner-public-lands-cert-petition) is an appeal of a New Mexico appellate court decision (here). The case also involves the Jicarilla Apache Nation, Navajo Nation, and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.

Here is the question presented:

Whether the New Mexico Commissioner of Public Lands may claim federal reserved water rights with respect to lands Congress reserved from the federal public domain, and granted to the State of New Mexico subject to a strict, federally enforceable trust, to support public education and for other related purposes specified by Congress.

Oral Argument Transcript in Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs

Available here.

Carcieri and Its Potential Impact on Michigan Indian Tribes

I’m not going to add much to Bryan Newland’s reasonable commentary on the Carcieri decision, and my overall views will be in Indian Country Today on Thursday.

This post is about the potential impact of Carcieri on Michigan Indian tribes. I want to emphasize that this case may have significant potential impacts for Michigan tribes. The Grand Traverse Band in particular extensively cooperated with the Tribal Supreme Court Project substantively from the time this case first appeared in the First Circuit; one wouldn’t necessarily know that from the opinion and the pleadings, which are all under the banner of the National Congress of American Indians. NCAI owes GTB a great deal here for the risk it took.

GTB, as a tribe somewhat similarly situated to the Narragansett Tribe, had a great deal to lose by popping their heads up and taking a stand in this case. The Court could have come down with a much harsher bright-line rule. One should realize how this case could have — and may still — be a serious blow to the Grand Traverse Band and other tribes like them.

Here are my thoughts on the potential impact on Michigan Indian Tribes:

Continue reading

Initial Reaction to Carcieri Opinion

I took a deep breath and drafted this initial review of the opinion. The deep breath was to avoid a knee-jerk response here like the one I had after the Plains Commerce Bank decision last year.

The Supreme Court handed down its opinion in the case of Carcieri v. Kempthorne (Salazar), which involed the Narragansett Indian Tribe’s petition to have land placed into trust by the Secretary of Interior. The Court ruled that the Secretary of Interior could not place land into trust for the Tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act, because the Tribe was not recognized at the time the IRA was passed in 1934 (the Narragansett Tribe was finally acknowledged in 1983, after a century-long effort).

The decision was 6-3 in favor of the Governor of Rhode Island, although Justice Stevens was the only justice to fully dissent from the opinion, and drafted an opinion in support of the Tribe.

The IRA states that the Secretary of Interior may place land into trust for tribes “now under Federal jurisdiction.” According to the Court, use of the word “now” means that this provision only applies to tribes under federal jurisdiction at the time the IRA was passed.

You can find the opinion and background materials here.

A couple of quick thoughts on this case:

Continue reading

Carcieri v. Salazar Goes Against US and Tribes

Here is the opinion.

Commentary on the Navajo Nation Oral Argument

As could be predicted, the oral argument in United States v. Navajo Nation (transcript) did not go very well for the respondents. Adam Liptak noted that Justice Ginsburg showed unusual vigor in suggesting to Carter Phillips that her 2003 majority opinion in Navajo Nation I foreclosed any chance for a monetary award, implying that the first decision covered any possible relevant openings for the Nation.

And that’s how Acting SG Ed Kneedler opened, by arguing that the questions presented in Navajo I included all possible statutes that could generate an award-generating cause of action for the Nation. Before the Acting SG concluded his opening portion of the argument, Justice Ginsburg on page 18 was asking Mr. Kneedler the proper course of action once the Court rules in favor of the government. See Transcript page 18, lines 4-7. Kneedler suggested a reversal and a dismissal of the complaint below. No more remands, something perhaps the Court forgot to do before.

Continue reading

NYTs on Justice Ginsburg’s Participation in the Navajo Nation Oral Argument

From NYTs:

WASHINGTON — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer less than three weeks ago, was back on the Supreme Court bench on Monday, asking crisp and vigorous questions in the two arguments heard by the court.

Justice Ginsburg seemed to take particular interest in a case brought by the Navajo Nation claiming that the federal government had been complicit in a scheme to allow a private company to underpay for coal on tribal lands.

The case, United States v. Navajo Nation, No. 07-1410, was making its second appearance before the court. Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion ruling against the tribe in 2003, and she asked forceful questions suggesting that she saw no reason to revisit her conclusions.

Carter G. Phillips, the tribe’s lawyer, was just starting his argument when Justice Ginsburg asked the first question. Quoting broad language from her original decision, she suggested that it covered the newer case, too.

“Do you think that was just carelessness on the court’s part?” she asked of the expansive language she had used, including the phrase “any relevant statute or regulation.”

“Oh, I would never assume that, Justice Ginsburg,” Mr. Phillips said in a light tone. Justice Ginsburg reacted with a broad smile.

A few minutes later, she quoted a second passage along similar lines, and Mr. Phillips again deferred to her. “Obviously, Justice Ginsburg, you are in a much better position to judge what was intended here,” he said, before going on to say that this case involved a different federal statute than the 2003 one.

Continue reading

U.S. v. Navajo Nation Oral Argument Transcript

Available here.