Amador County, Cal. v. Salazar
395 U.S. App. D.C. 110
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Buena Vista Rancheria (Me-Wuk) entered a California IGRA compact; Secretary failed to act within 45 days, deeming approval to the extent consistent with IGRA.
- Amador County challenges the Secretary’s inaction on the amended compact, alleging the Rancheria land fails IGRA’s Indian lands requirement.
- A district court dismissed for lack of standing and for unreviewability of approval by inaction under APA; county appealed.
- Hardwick v. United States settlement restored land boundaries and declared Indian Country status for the Rancheria, with applicable federal laws.
- The parties agree Class III gaming would be lawful only if land qualifies as Indian land; issue centers on Hardwick Judgment’s impact and land status.
- This appeal concerns whether Amador County has standing and whether the Secretary’s inaction is reviewable, and, if reviewable, the merits of Indian land status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Amador County have standing to challenge the inaction? | Amador County has injury, causation, redressability; zone-of-interests supports standing. | County lacks cognizable interest; action within IGRA context is not within zone-of-interests. | County has standing. |
| Is the Secretary's approval by inaction reviewable under the APA and IGRA? | Inaction can be reviewed when it violates IGRA or trust obligations; not barred by discretion. | Inaction is unreviewable as committed to agency discretion or not an 'agency action'. | Inaction approval is reviewable; jurisdiction and merits proceed. |
| Whether the Rancheria qualifies as Indian land under IGRA given Hardwick Judgment | Hardwick Judgment restored Indian Country status; land should qualify as Indian land. | Hardwick Judgment is limited to tax and internal classifications; not binding on IGRA challenge. | Issue to be decided on merits; remand for district court to assess Hardwick scope. |
| If reviewable, can the court adjudicate whether the compact complies with IGRA? | If challenged as contrary to law, court reviews for compliance with IGRA. | Court should defer to Secretary's discretionary approval/not disapproval. | Court can review for compliance with IGRA; remand proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Patchak v. Salazar, 632 F.3d 702 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (zone-of-interests and standing in IGRA context)
- Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Norton, 422 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 2005) (standing and review of land-into-trust decisions under IGRA)
- SUWA v. Norton, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (discreteness requirement for inaction; narrow review)
- Sprint Nextel Corp. v. FCC, 508 F.3d 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (forbearance petitions; discrete act requirement; distinguish from IGRA)
- Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (may vs shall interpretation to limit agency discretion)
- Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340 (1984) (statutory preclusion of review is jurisdictional when explicit)
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (allowing judicial review of agency action under APA)
- Bowen v. Mich. Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (1986) (strong presumption of judicial review of agency action)
- Otherson v. DOJ (INS), 711 F.2d 267 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (preclusion and issue scope in settlements and judgments)