From Indianz.
trust acquisitions
Seattle U. Conference Materials — “Perspectives on Tribal Land Acquisitions in 2010: A Call to Action”
Eric Eberhard has generously provided the entire conference transcript and materials packet for the Seattle University Center for Indian Law and Policy conference, “Perspectives on Tribal Land Acquisitions in 2010: A Call to Action.”
These materials easily are the finest set of documents relating to the last 30 years of the law and politics of Interior trust acquisitions.
It’s an 862-page document, about 100 MB, but worth the time to download [if you want the CD, please contact Eric or others in the program]
SCIA Hearing on Trust Acquisitions — Witness List
From the SCIA (there might be a typo down there… 🙂):
Panel 1
MR. GEORGE SKIBINE
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
Accompanied by: MS. VICKI FORREST, Deputy Bureau Director for Trust
Services, Ll.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
Panel 2
THE HONORABLE CARL J. ARTMAN
Updated: Esquire, Professor of Practice, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
THE HONORABLE DEREK BAILEY
Chairman, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Ind ians, Peshawbestown, Michigan
Commentary on the MichGO En Banc and Cert Petitions
MichGo’s attorney asserts a plan to file a cert petition (see below the fold for the news article), and even boasts that he has three votes for cert already — Scalia and Thomas because they dissented in the South Dakota case in 1996, and Roberts because he represented a party making a nondelegation claim to 25 U.S.C. sec. 465 in 1999/2000.
This is spurious, given very recent events.
The Department of Interior just issued nearly-final IGRA Section 20 [25 U.S.C. 2719] regulations. These were the regulations I was talking about in my ICT editorial (not knowing they were about to be finalized). The very existence of these regulations severely blunts Judge Brown’s dissent in the D.C. Circuit case. Here, the Secretary is finally agreeing to formalize restrictions on his discretion contained in section 5 of the IRA [25 U.S.C. 465] in the context of Section 20 trust acquisitions.
One could make a plausible claim that, to the extent the SCT would be persuaded by a solitary dissent in a very minor case (nationally), it is now all but a dead letter.
What the D.C. Circuit should do is amend its decision to reflect the existence of the new regs, adding another nail to the coffin of the Section 5 nondelegation argument.
Finally, as MichGO’s attorney should know, one solitary dissent does not a circuit split make.
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.
Cert Petition in Carcieri v. Kempthorne
From Indianz.com:
Rhode Island appeals land-into-trust ruling
Friday, October 19, 2007The state of Rhode Island is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a land-into-trust case that is being watched by tribes nationwide.
In July, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Bureau of Indian Affairs can place 31 acres in trust for the Narragansett Tribe. The tribe is like any other tribe and can follow the Indian Reorganization Act, which authorized the land-into-trust process, the court said.
As I will argue in my forthcoming article, “Factbound and Splitless: An Empirical Study of the Impact of the Certiorari Process on Federal Indian Law,” the Supreme Court is unlikely to grant cert. in this case for two important reasons. First, there is no circuit split (“splitless”). What that means is that the federal courts of appeal that have addressed the question of the constitutionality of the fee to trust process (25 U.S.C. § 465) — the 8th Circuit in South Dakota v. Kempthorne, the 10th Circuit in Utah v. Shivwits, and the 11th Circuit in Roberts v. U.S., are examples — have held (just as the 1st Circuit did here) that the statute is constitutional.
Second, this case involves the muddying aspects of the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act and how it affects the application of § 465, rendering this case a bit messy as a factual matter (“factbound”). If this was a straight-up interpretation of § 465 without the Settlement Act’s application, the Court would be more likely to grant cert (although, without a split, not so much). In short, this case implicates a relatively small number of tribes (those Rhode Island tribes).
Land-into-Trust Decision:
Carcieri v. Kempthorne (July 20, 2007)
Earlier 1st Circuit Decision:
Carcieri v. Norton (February 9, 2005)
Relevant Documents:
Carcieri v. Norton Briefs, Opinions (NARF-NCAI Tribal Supreme Court Project
Relevant Laws:
Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act (US Code)
Relevant Links:
Narragansett Tribe – http://www.narragansett-tribe.org
Tribal Supreme Court Project – http://www.narf.org/sct/index.html
Turtle Talk 