{ "id": "RL34521", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL34521", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 455269, "date": "2016-08-23", "retrieved": "2016-10-17T19:34:02.681577", "title": "Carcieri v. Salazar: The Secretary of the Interior May Not Acquire Trust Land for the Narragansett Indian Tribe Under 25 U.S.C. Section 465 Because That Statute Applies to Tribes \u201cUnder Federal Jurisdiction\u201d in 1934", "summary": "In Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a 1934 statute provides no authority for the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) to take land into trust for the Narragansett Indian Tribe (Tribe) because the statute applies only to tribes under federal jurisdiction when that law was enacted. The reach of the decision may be broad because it relies on the major statute under which the SOI acquires land in trust for the benefit of Indians. It affects the SOI\u2019s authority to take land into trust for any recently recognized tribe unless the trust acquisition has been authorized by legislation other than the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) or the tribe can show that it was \u201cunder Federal jurisdiction\u201d in 1934.\nA subsequent decision of the Supreme Court, Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2199 (2012), appears to have opened the way to undo trust acquisitions on the basis of the Administrative Procedure Act. In that case, the Court refuted a long-held assumption that U.S. sovereign immunity under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. \u00a72409(a), barred challenges to any decision of the Secretary to take Indian land into trust once title has passed to the United States. In the case, the Court ruled that a suit directly challenging the Department of the Interior (DOI) and its decision to acquire the land in trust could go forward. The case involved a challenge to a trust acquisition for a tribe that had not been officially recognized in 1934. It was brought under the Administrative Procedure Act and within its six-year statute of limitations. Subsequent cases, including a June 4, 2015, en banc decision, Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California, 789 F. 3d 947 (9th Cir. 2015), of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, indicate that challenges to the status of Indian trust lands not raised within the six-year statute of limitations will not be entertained by the courts.\nCarcieri involves a parcel of land which the SOI had agreed to take into trust for the benefit of the Narragansett Tribe, thereby presumably subjecting it to federal and tribal jurisdiction and possibly opening the way for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The land is outside the Tribe\u2019s current reservation, which is subject to the civil and criminal laws of Rhode Island according to the terms of the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1974 (RIICSA). RIICSA does not explicitly address the possibility that lands other than the \u201csettlement lands\u201d could be placed in trust; nor does it specify what jurisdictional arrangement should apply should that occur. The issues before the Supreme Court were (1) whether the authority under which the SOI has agreed to acquire the land, 25 U.S.C. \u00a7465, a provision of the IRA of 1934, covers trust acquisitions by a tribe that was neither federally recognized nor under federal jurisdiction in 1934, and (2) whether the trust acquisition violated the terms of RIICSA. The Supreme Court\u2019s decision is predicated on the Court\u2019s finding that the definitions of \u201cIndians\u201d and \u201cIndian tribe\u201d in the 1934 legislation unambiguously restrict the beneficiaries for whom the SOI may take land into trust to tribes that, in 1934, were \u201cunder Federal jurisdiction.\u201d The Court also held that the Narragansett Indian Tribe was not \u201cunder Federal jurisdiction\u201d in 1934. It, therefore, ruled that the trust was not authorized by the statute and reversed the lower court.\nCarcieri prompted the March 12, 2014, DOI issuance of a Solicitor of the Interior Memorandum on \u201cThe Meaning of Under Federal Jurisdiction\u2019 for Purposes of the Indian Reorganization Act.\u201d In it, the agency set forth its standards for determining whether a tribe not officially recognized until after 1934 was \u201cunder Federal jurisdiction\u201d in 1934. These standards have found judicial acceptance in some recent cases. The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon v. Jewell, No. 14-5326, 2016 WL 40560092 (D.C. Cir. July 29, 2016), involved a trust acquisition for a tribe not officially acknowledged as an Indian tribe until 2002. Central New York Fair Business Association v. Jewell, No. 6:08-cv-0660(LEK/DEP), 2015 WL 1400384 (N.D. N.Y. March 26, 2015), involved a decision to take land into trust for the Oneida Indian Nation of New York, a tribe that had conducted an IRA vote in 1934. Acquisition of trust land for that tribe was challenged on the basis of the claim that a 19th century statute terminating the tribe\u2019s reservation resulted in placing the tribe under state jurisdiction. Moreover, two September 30, 2015, decisions of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, No Casino in Plymouth and Citizens Equal Rights Alliance v. Jewell, 136 F. Supp. 3d 1166 (E.D. Cal. 2015), and County of Amador v Jewell, 136 F. Supp. 3d 1193 (E.D. Cal. 2015), dismissed challenges to a trust acquisition for the Ione Band of Miwok Indians. Those challenges sought to show that the Ione Band of Indians was not \u201cunder Federal jurisdiction in 1934\u201d on the basis of various inconsistencies in the DOI\u2019s treatment of that tribe. \nOne land-into-trust determination by the SOI has been rejected by a federal court. Littlefield v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 16-10184-WGY (D. Mass. July 28, 2016), invalidated a DOI decision to take land into trust under the 1934 legislation for the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe. That tribe had been formally acknowledged in 2007. Its application for a land-into-trust acquisition was approved on the basis of a second definition of \u201cIndian\u201d in the IRA. The DOI had found that definition to be ambiguous. The federal district court disagreed. It ruled that, under its plain meaning, that definition applies only to Indians whose tribes were \u201cunder Federal jurisdiction\u201d in 1934.\nIn the 114th Congress, S. 1879, the Interior Improvement Act, introduced by Senator John Barrasso, chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and reported by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on June 6, 2016 (S.Rept. 114-275), joins three other bills, S. 732/H.R. 407, and H.R. 249, which have been introduced to amend the Indian Reorganization Act to permit trust land acquisitions for all federally recognized Indian tribes.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL34521", "sha1": "602d10ddca38d3669f3671c006b2196dda285ea4", "filename": "files/20160823_RL34521_602d10ddca38d3669f3671c006b2196dda285ea4.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL34521", "sha1": "7910148259add013def61242920096e4d8a994a5", "filename": "files/20160823_RL34521_7910148259add013def61242920096e4d8a994a5.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4753, "name": "Indian Affairs" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 445453, "date": "2015-09-11", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T18:24:22.088019", "title": "Carcieri v. Salazar: The Secretary of the Interior May Not Acquire Trust Land for the Narragansett Indian Tribe Under 25 U.S.C. Section 465 Because That Statute Applies to Tribes \u201cUnder Federal Jurisdiction\u201d in 1934", "summary": "In Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a 1934 statute provides no authority for the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) to take land into trust for the Narragansett Indian Tribe (Tribe) because the statute applies only to tribes under federal jurisdiction when that law was enacted. The reach of the decision may be broad because it relies on the major statute under which the SOI acquires land in trust for the benefit of Indians. The decision appears to call into question the ability of the SOI to take land into trust for any recently recognized tribe unless the trust acquisition has been authorized by legislation other than the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) or the tribe can show that it was \u201cunder Federal jurisdiction\u201d in 1934. A June 2012 Supreme Court decision, Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, increases the possible effect that the Carcieri decision is likely to have in Indian country. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a plaintiff seeking to bring a suit to undo a trust acquisition by showing that the tribe for whom the land was taken into trust was not under federal jurisdiction in 1934. The decision has prompted the Bureau of Indian Affairs to revise 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.\nCarcieri involves a parcel of land which the SOI had agreed to take into trust for the benefit of the Narragansett Tribe, thereby presumably subjecting it to federal and tribal jurisdiction and possibly opening the way for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The land is outside the Tribe\u2019s current reservation, which is subject to the civil and criminal laws of Rhode Island according to the terms of the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1974 (RIICSA). RIICSA does not explicitly address the possibility that lands other than the \u201csettlement lands\u201d could be placed in trust; nor does it specify what jurisdictional arrangement should apply should that occur. The issues before the Supreme Court were (1) whether the authority under which the SOI has agreed to acquire the land, 25 U.S.C. \u00a7465, a provision of the IRA of 1934, covers trust acquisitions by a tribe that was neither federally recognized nor under federal jurisdiction in 1934, and (2) whether the trust acquisition violated the terms of RIICSA. The Supreme Court\u2019s decision is predicated on the Court\u2019s finding that the definitions of \u201cIndians\u201d and \u201cIndian tribe\u201d in the 1934 legislation unambiguously restrict the beneficiaries for whom the SOI may take land into trust to tribes that, in 1934, were \u201cunder Federal jurisdiction.\u201d The Court also held that the Narragansett Indian Tribe was not \u201cunder Federal jurisdiction\u201d in 1934. It, therefore, ruled that the trust was not authorized by the statute and reversed the lower court.\nTwo developments in recent cases suggest the possibility that the SOI may be able to continue to take land into trust for tribes not officially recognized in 1934. The DOI has developed standards for determining that tribes not officially recognized until after 1934 may be found to be \u201cunder Federal jurisdiction\u201d in 1934. It was explicated in a Solicitor of the Interior Memorandum on \u201cThe Meaning of Under Federal Jurisdiction\u2019 for Purposes of the Indian Reorganization Act,\u201d issued on March 12, 2014. Two federal district courts have upheld the application of these standards in recent cases. One case, The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon v. Jewell, involved land acquisition for a tribe that was not officially acknowledged as an Indian tribe until 2002. Moreover, the three-judge panel decision in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California, 741 F. 3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2014), which raises questions on the validity of past trust acquisitions, is being reconsidered by an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit.\nIn the 114th Congress, S. 1879, the Interior Improvement Act, introduced by Senator John Barrasso, chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, joins three other bills, S. 732/H.R. 732, and H.R. 249, which have been introduced to amend the Indian Reorganization Act to permit trust land acquisitions for all federally recognized Indian tribes.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL34521", "sha1": "75393dfb8768b68a924da1189400dc6d9308849a", "filename": "files/20150911_RL34521_75393dfb8768b68a924da1189400dc6d9308849a.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL34521", "sha1": "df7ac9b8dbd59dd1e99d8e0c89c682bfe64e6ddf", "filename": "files/20150911_RL34521_df7ac9b8dbd59dd1e99d8e0c89c682bfe64e6ddf.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc805410/", "id": "RL34521_2015Apr22", "date": "2015-04-22", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Carcieri v. Salazar: The Secretary of the Interior May Not Acquire Trust Land for the Narragansett Indian Tribe Under 25 U.S.C. Section 465 Because That Statute Applies to Tribes \u201cUnder Federal Jurisdiction\u201d in 1934", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150422_RL34521_5ec6b0b157d5034031754714e6df03871d2787d7.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150422_RL34521_5ec6b0b157d5034031754714e6df03871d2787d7.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc98110/", "id": "RL34521_2011Apr15", "date": "2011-04-15", "retrieved": "2012-08-21T08:46:06", "title": "Carcieri v. Salazar: The Secretary of the Interior May Not Acquire Trust Land for the Narragansett Indian Tribe Under 25 U.S.C. \u00a7 465 Because That Statute Applies to Tribes \u201cUnder Federal Jurisdiction\u201d in 1934", "summary": "This report discusses the right of the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) to take Narragansett Indian Tribe land into trust. It looks at issues before the Supreme Court in the case of Carcieri v. Salazar (2009), and subsequent bills related to this case that have been introduced by Congress.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20110415_RL34521_2b1aa70b7a38fd3cc57c44a9fffd2d5228e39424.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20110415_RL34521_2b1aa70b7a38fd3cc57c44a9fffd2d5228e39424.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Indians", "name": "Indians" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Federal-Indian relations", "name": "Federal-Indian relations" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Indian affairs legislation", "name": "Indian affairs legislation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Indian lands", "name": "Indian lands" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "State government-Indian relations", "name": "State government-Indian relations" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Minorities", "name": "Minorities" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc808657/", "id": "RL34521_2008Jun03", "date": "2008-06-03", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Carcieri v. Kempthorne: Whether the Secretary of the Interior May Acquire for the Narragansett Indian Tribe Trust Land Which is Not Subject to Rhode Island\u2019s Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20080603_RL34521_46ce794aed529c06aa504d677a6b1e79a04db23e.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20080603_RL34521_46ce794aed529c06aa504d677a6b1e79a04db23e.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [] }