935 F. Supp. 2d 195
D.D.C.2013Background
- Five Alaska Native tribes and an individual sued the Secretary of the Interior challenging a regulation that bars most Alaska lands from being taken into trust under IRA §5, except Metlakatla; the Alaska exception is the focus of the dispute.
- Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) extinguished most aboriginal land claims and aimed to avoid a trustee/reservation system, but did not explicitly repeal the IRA land-into-trust authority.
- The 1980s–2000s regulatory history includes the 1980 Alaska-scope exclusion, a 1994 petition to expand coverage, a 1999 proposal to continue the bar, and a 2001 final rule rescinded by later actions, with the current challenged rule still containing the Alaska exception.
- The case centers on whether the Alaska exception to §151.1 (which states Alaska trust acquisitions are not covered by the regulation) improperly discriminates against Alaska Natives in violation of 25 U.S.C. § 476(g).
- The court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, holding the Alaska exception violates § 476(g) and that the Secretary retains authority to take land into trust for Alaska Natives generally, with remedy briefing to follow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Secretary retains authority to take Alaska land into trust outside Metlakatla. | ANCSA/ANCSA extinguishment forecloses such authority. | Authority survives; Alaska exception bars regulation-based process but not discretion. | Yes, authority survives; Alaska exception violates §476(g). |
| Effect of 25 C.F.R. § 151.1 Alaska exception on legality of regulation. | Alaska exception discriminates against Alaska Natives. | Alaska exception is a reading of the regulation, not a new statute. | Alaska exception invalid; regulation has no force or effect to the extent it excludes Alaska Natives. |
| Whether ANCSA implicitly repeals Secretary’s land-into-trust authority. | ANCSA does not implicitly repeal ongoing trust authority. | ANCSA extinguishes or precludes further trust acquisitions. | ANCSA does not implicitly repeal the authority; text/structure support continuity. |
| Whether § 476(g) invalidates Alaska exception as discrimination among tribes. | Alaska exception diminishes privileges of non-Metlakatla tribes. | Discrimination argument is unavailing; statute limited inapplicable way. | § 476(g) voids the Alaska exception; remedy briefing ordered. |
| Scope of remedy for invalid regulation. | Remedy should target Alaska exception only. | Remedy scope is open; could affect broader regulation. | Remedy scope to be determined in further briefing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Venetie v. United States, 522 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1998) (ANCSA extinguished aboriginal claims and reservations (Metlakatla preserved))
- Tozzi v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 271 F.3d 301 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (judicial deference to agency interpretations of regulations)
- Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (U.S. 1988) (deference standards for agency interpretations (Auer))
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (U.S. 2001) (scope of Skidmore deference and agency interpretation)
- Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1974) (proper approach to tribal preferences and statutory construction)
- Detweiler v. Pena, 38 F.3d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (statutory interpretation and implied repeals considerations)
- City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1987) (plain-language interpretation of statutes)