{ "id": "RL34325", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL34325", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 455271, "date": "2016-08-23", "retrieved": "2016-10-17T19:34:08.952746", "title": "Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA): Gaming on Newly Acquired Lands", "summary": "The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) (P.L. 100-497) generally prohibits gaming on lands acquired for Indians in trust by the Secretary of the Interior (SOI or Secretary) after October 17, 1988. The exceptions, however, raise the possibility of Indian gaming proposals for locations presently unconnected with an Indian tribe. Among the exceptions are land (1) acquired after the SOI determines acquisition to be in the best interest of the tribe and not detrimental to the local community and the governor of the state concurs; (2) acquired for tribes that had no reservation on the date of enactment of IGRA; (3) acquired as part of a land claim settlement; (4) acquired as part of an initial reservation for a newly recognized tribe; and (5) acquired as part of the restoration of lands for a tribe restored to federal recognition.\nAn implementing regulation was issued on May 20, 2009. It specifies the standards to be satisfied by tribes seeking to conduct gaming on lands acquired after October 17, 1988. The regulation includes limiting definitions of some of the statutory terms and considerable specificity in the documentation required for tribal applications. During the latter half of 2010, the Department of the Interior (DOI) conducted a series of consultation sessions with Indian tribes focusing on whether the implementing regulation should be revised. On June 13, 2011, DOI determined the regulation to be satisfactory and withdrew earlier departmental guidance, which had been issued before the regulation had become final. The guidance addressed how DOI handled tribal applications for off-reservation land acquisitions for gaming. It had elaborate requirements for a tribe to satisfy with respect to applications for gaming facilities not within commutable distances from the tribe\u2019s reservation.\nA June 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, appears to have increased the possibility for challenges to secretarial decisions to take land into trust by (1) ruling that individuals who are potentially harmed by the proposed use of land taken into trust have standing under the Federal Administrative Procedure Act to bring suit, and (2) holding that suits to challenge the legality of a DOI decision to take land into trust that do not claim title to the land are not precluded by the Quiet Title Act, which contains a waiver of sovereign immunity for quiet title actions against the United States, except for suits involving Indian title. \nSince the Patchak decision, there have been two noteworthy developments. First, the Bureau of Indian Affairs revised the land acquisition regulations to specify that, once there is final agency action, land is to be taken into trust immediately without a 30-day waiting period. Second, a June 4, 2015, en banc decision of a federal appellate court, Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California, 789 F. 3d 947 (9th Cir. 2015), held that a challenge to the validity of a trust acquisition must be brought within the Administrative Procedure Act\u2019s six-year statute of limitations.\nNine laws have been enacted in recent Congresses with gaming prohibitions in connection with specific lands being taken into trust: (1) P.L. 114-69, the Albuquerque Indian School Land Transfer Act, which provides for trust acquisitions for 19 Pueblos and specifies that class I, class II, or class III gaming may not take place on the acquired trust land; (2) P.L. 114-181, which transfers in trust \u201cfor non-gaming purposes\u201d certain federal Bureau of Land Management land in California for the benefit of the Susanville Indian Ranchera; (3) P.L. 113-179, the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, which ratified the DOI\u2019s May 15, 2005, trust acquisition of the land at issue in Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of-Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, and required that any federal court action relating to that land should be dismissed; (4) P.L. 113-134, which provides for the trust acquisition of certain federal land for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona; (5) P.L. 113-127, which provides for taking certain Bureau of Land Management land into trust for the benefit of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians and prohibiting IGRA class II and class III gaming on the land; (6) P.L. 112-97, which authorizes the acquisition of certain land for the Quileute Indian Tribe in the state of Washington; (7) P.L. 112-212, which declares certain federal land to be held in trust for the Bridgeport Indian Colony; (8) Section 2601(h)(4)(A) of P.L. 111-11, which prohibits class II and class III gaming on land that the provision transfers to be held in trust for the Washoe Tribe; and (9) P.L. 111-323, which prohibits gaming on federal land transferred to the Hoh Tribe. \nLegislation proposed in the 114h Congress includes two bills, S. 732 and H.R. 249, which would amend the Indian Reorganization Act to make all federally recognized Indian tribes eligible for trust land acquisition. There are also a number of bills providing federal recognition of or land acquisitions for particular tribes with provisions restricting IGRA gaming for those tribes or on those lands.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL34325", "sha1": "7e5e16502d3dc3fc29da7245d62bbf60395a7989", "filename": "files/20160823_RL34325_7e5e16502d3dc3fc29da7245d62bbf60395a7989.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL34325", "sha1": "f9f4d3a0e7748b23ab56a6358f64860273db3a9d", "filename": "files/20160823_RL34325_f9f4d3a0e7748b23ab56a6358f64860273db3a9d.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4753, "name": "Indian Affairs" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 440635, "date": "2015-04-24", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T19:09:47.208504", "title": "Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA): Gaming on Newly Acquired Lands", "summary": "The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) (P.L. 100-497) generally prohibits gaming on lands acquired for Indians in trust by the Secretary of the Interior (SOI or Secretary) after October 17, 1988. The exceptions, however, raise the possibility of Indian gaming proposals for locations presently unconnected with an Indian tribe. Among the exceptions are land (1) acquired after the SOI determines acquisition to be in the best interest of the tribe and not detrimental to the local community and the governor of the state concurs; (2) acquired for tribes that had no reservation on the date of enactment of IGRA; (3) acquired as part of a land claim settlement; (4) acquired as part of an initial reservation for a newly recognized tribe; and (5) acquired as part of the restoration of lands for a tribe restored to federal recognition.\nAn implementing regulation was issued on May 20, 2008; it specifies the standards to be satisfied by tribes seeking to conduct gaming on lands acquired after October 17, 1988. The regulation includes limiting definitions of some of the statutory terms and considerable specificity in the documentation required for tribal applications. During the latter half of 2010, the Department of the Interior (DOI) conducted a series of consultation sessions with Indian tribes focusing on whether the implementing regulation should be revised. On June 13, 2011, DOI determined the regulation to be satisfactory and withdrew earlier departmental guidance, which had been issued before the regulation had become final. The guidance addressed how DOI handled tribal applications for off-reservation land acquisitions for gaming. It had elaborate requirements for a tribe to satisfy with respect to applications for gaming facilities not within commutable distances from the tribe\u2019s reservation.\nA June 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, appears to have increased the possibility for challenges to secretarial decisions to take land into trust by (1) ruling that individuals who are potentially harmed by the proposed use of land taken into trust have standing under the Federal Administrative Procedure Act to bring suit, and (2) holding that suits to challenge the legality of a DOI decision to take land into trust that do not claim title to the land are not precluded by the Quiet Title Act, which contains a waiver of sovereign immunity for quiet title actions against the United States, except for suits involving Indian title. The Patchak decision did not reach the merits, which will be at issue in a trial at the district court level. Since the Patchak decision, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has revised the land acquisition regulations specifying that, once there is final agency action, land is to be taken into trust immediately without a 30-day waiting period.\nHow the courts will treat previous trust acquisitions is a matter that is before an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit. In December 2014, the court decided to review a three-judge panel decision, Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California, 741 F. 3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2014), that raised the possibility that previous trust acquisitions will not be recognized by the courts.\nIn the most recent Congresses, six laws contained gaming prohibitions in connection with specific lands being taken into trust: (1) P.L. 112-97, authorizing acquisition of certain land for the Quileute Indian Tribe in the state of Washington; (2) P.L. 112-212, declaring certain federal land to be held in trust for the Bridgeport Indian Colony; (3) Section 2601(h)(4)(A) of P.L. 111-11, which prohibits class II and class III gaming on land which the provision transfers to be held in trust for the Washoe Tribe; (4) P.L. 111-323, which prohibits gaming on federal land transferred to the Hoh Tribe; (5) P.L. 113-134, providing for the trust acquisition of certain federal land for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona; and (6) P.L. 113-127, taking certain Bureau of Land Management land into trust for the benefit of the Shingle Spring Band of Miwok Indians and prohibiting IGRA class II and class III gaming on it.\nLegislation introduced in the 114h Congress includes two bills, S. 732 and H.R. 249, which would amend the Indian Reorganization Act to make all federally recognized Indian tribes eligible for trust land acquisition, and several bills providing federal recognition of or land acquisitions for particular tribes with provisions restricting IGRA gaming for those tribes or on those lands.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL34325", "sha1": "5567e2587a92bfb0a23a860707c43786bea89d6e", "filename": "files/20150424_RL34325_5567e2587a92bfb0a23a860707c43786bea89d6e.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL34325", "sha1": "d367639ec4e5919ef4dc92c6201c27455a5b26aa", "filename": "files/20150424_RL34325_d367639ec4e5919ef4dc92c6201c27455a5b26aa.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc822575/", "id": "RL34325_2008May28", "date": "2008-05-28", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA): Gaming on Newly Acquired Lands", "summary": "This report discuses the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which generally prohibits gaming on lands acquired for Indians in trust by the Secretary of the Interior.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20080528_RL34325_d7f4d4ef027dd0c8746a0e298203041683619c0d.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20080528_RL34325_d7f4d4ef027dd0c8746a0e298203041683619c0d.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Gambling", "name": "Gambling" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Indian gambling operations", "name": "Indian gambling operations" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Minorities", "name": "Minorities" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Environmental Policy" ] }