Carcieri v. Kempthorne
Issues
1. Can the Secretary place in federal trust land privately purchased by Indian tribes recognized after the passage of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, thereby removing the land from state control?
2. If the Congress passes an Act that terminates previous Indian claims to land, is the Secretary of the Interior precluded from creating additional territory?
In 1978, Rhode Island and the Narragansett Indian Tribe settled a dispute concerning land ownership. In exchange for 1,800 acres of land, the Narragansett surrendered other claims to title and agreed that Rhode Island law would apply to the 1,800 acres. This settlement became federal law. The Narragansett later purchased a thirty-one acre parcel from a private developer. At the Narragansetts’ request, the Secretary of the Interior took the land into federal trust under the Indian Reorganization Act (“IRA”), thereby removing it from Rhode Island’s jurisdiction. Concerned over their loss of sovereignty, Rhode Island fought the Secretary’s actions, ultimately leading to the present case between Rhode Island, the Governor, and the town of Charleston, against the Secretary of the Interior and the Regional Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The IRA applies to “tribe[s] now under Federal jurisdiction,” (emphasis added) (25 U.S.C. 479). Interpreting “now” to mean 1934, the time of the IRA’s passage, Rhode Island argues that the IRA would not apply to the Narragansett Indian Tribe, who were recognized later. The Secretary argues that “now” means when the statute is used and therefore the Narragansett do fall within the IRA’s scope. Rhode Island also argues that the settlement with the Narragansett precludes the Secretary from taking the land into federal trust. This case will affect state sovereignty and the power of the IRA. Rhode Island and other states are concerned over the potential loss of local control and jurisdiction over land within their borders. An interpretation of the scope of the IRA could also affect access to the IRA, potentially resulting in a loss of its benefits and protection from state law.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 permits the Secretary to take land into trust for certain Indian tribes, significantly impairing state jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit held that the 1934 Act “positively dictates” that the only Indian tribes for whom land can be taken into trust are those that were “recognized” and “under federal jurisdiction” as of “June 1934.” This Court similarly concluded in that the 1934 Act contained a temporal “recognized [in 1934] tribe” limitation. United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978) (bracket by Court). The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court decision to the same effect. The Rhode Island Indian Land Claims Settlement Act provides land specifically for the later recognized Narragansett Indian Tribe and comprehensively disposes of all Indian land claims in Rhode Island. The Tribe received 1,800 acres of land for free.
In exchange, Congress extinguished aboriginal title and all Indian interests in land in Rhode Island.
The questions presented are:
1. Whether the 1934 Act empowers the Secretary to take land into trust for Indian tribes that were not recognized and under federal jurisdiction in 1934.
2. Whether an act of Congress that extinguishes aboriginal title and all claims based on Indian rights and interests in land precludes the Secretary from creating Indian country there.
3. Whether providing land “for Indians” in the 1934 Act establishes a sufficiently intelligible principle upon which to delegate the power to take land into trust.
[Questions 1 and 2 granted certiorari]
This case is the culmination of litigation between the Rhode Island and the Narragansett Indian Tribe that began in 1975, when the Narragansett filed suit to recover tribal lands in Rhode Island. See Narragansett Tribe of Indians v. Southern Rhode Island Land Development Corp., 418 F. Supp 798, 802–03 (D. R.I.
Written by
Edited by
Additional Resources
· LII Wex: Administrative Law
· The Boston Globe, Tribe Wants Talk on Casino [Mashpee Wampanoag tribe in Massachusetts]