Indian Reorganization Act

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.

Edited by

Additional Resources

· LII Wex: Administrative Law

· The Boston Globe, Tribe Wants Talk on Casino [Mashpee Wampanoag tribe in Massachusetts]

· Fox News, Court Takes Indian Land Case

Submit for publication
0

Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band v. Patchak and Salazar v. Patchak (Consolidated)

Issues

1. Whether the Quiet Title Act preserves sovereign immunity in challenges brought against federal Indian trust lands when the action does not claim personal title to the land.

2. Whether a private claimant who alleges injuries, derived from the operation of a gaming facility on Indian trust lands, has prudential standing to sue under the Indian Reorganization Act.

 

The Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of the Pottawatomi Indians (“the Band”) requested that the Secretary of the Interior take certain lands in trust under the Indian Reorganization Act in order to allow the tribe to operate a casino under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. David Patchak, a nearby resident, sued to block the land transfer. The district court dismissed his suit for lack of prudential standing to sue. The court of appeals reversed, and further held that under the Administrative Procedures Act the federal government had expressly disclaimed sovereign immunity. On appeal, the Petitioners—both the federal government and the Band—argue that Patchak’s claim is blocked by the government’s sovereign immunity, invoked by the Quiet Title Act, in claims brought to divest the government of Indian trust lands. In addition, Petitioners contend that Patchak’s interests in the suit do not fall within the zone of interests of the operative statute—the Indian Reorganization Act—and thus Patchak lacks prudential standing. Patchak argues that because his claim challenges agency action under the Administrative Procedures Act, it falls outside the Quiet Title Act and the sovereign immunity invocation. Patchak contends that his interest in the land’s use falls within the IRA’s zone of interests and establishes prudential standing. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case will resolve a standing circuit split on whether the Quiet Title Act applies to cases in which the plaintiff’s interest in divesting the title is something other than a claim of ownership to the land.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. Whether the Quiet Title Act and its reservation of the sovereign immunity in suits involving "trust or restricted Indian lands" apply to all suits concerning land in which the "claims an interest," 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a), as the Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, or whether they apply only when the plaintiff claims title to the land, as the D.C. Circuit held.

Whether 5 U.S.C. 702 waives the sovereign immunity of the United States from a suit challenging its title to lands that it holds in trust for an Indian Tribe.

2. Whether prudential standing to sue under federal law can be based on either (i) the plaintiff’s ability to "police" an agency's compliance with the law, as held by the D.C. Circuit but rejected by the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits, or (ii) interests protected by a different federal statute than the one on which suit is based, as held by the D.C. Circuit but rejected by the Federal Circuit.

Whether a private individual who alleges injuries resulting from the operation of a gaming facility on Indian trust land has prudential standing to challenge the decision of the Secretary of the Interior to take title to that land in trust, on the ground that the decision was not authorized by the Indian Reorganization Act, ch. 576, 48 Stat. 984.

The Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of the Pottawatomi Indians (“the Band”), a federally-recognized tribe, owned 147 acres of land, known as the Bradley Tract, in Wayland Township, Michigan. See Patchak v. Salazar, 632 F.3d. 702, 703 (D.C. Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to Indian Reorganization Act