Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California
741 F.3d 1032
9th Cir.2014Background
- Big Lagoon Ranchería sought to operate a Class III casino on an eleven-acre trust parcel in Humboldt County; IGRA negotiations were compelled by district court.
- BIA acquired the eleven-acre parcel in 1994 and took it into trust for Big Lagoon; the 1918 nine-acre parcel had earlier been associated with Charley’s family and later dissolved as a ranchería.
- Carcieri v. Salazar (2009) held that the federal government’s authority to take land into trust depends on tribes being under federal jurisdiction in 1934; this framed whether Big Lagoon could host gaming on the eleven-acre parcel.
- The district court held that the State had not negotiated in good faith and ordered negotiation or mediation; it also treated the eleven-acre status as potentially irrelevant to good faith.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that IGRA requires a tribe have jurisdiction over the specific Indian lands proposed for gaming, and Big Lagoon, as not under federal jurisdiction in 1934, could not compel negotiations for the eleven-acre parcel; the court reversed and remanded to enter judgment for the State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must a tribe have jurisdiction over Indian lands to compel IGRA negotiations? | Big Lagoon as a recognized tribe asserts IGRA rights to negotiate. | State argues Indian lands requirement controls and may bar negotiation. | Yes; jurisdiction over the land is required to compel negotiations. |
| Has the State waived the Indian lands requirement? | State may have conceded or not challenged lands status, implying waiver. | State can preserve challenges; waiver not established. | The requirement can be waived; but analysis focuses on land status here. |
| Is the eleven-acre parcel Indian lands under IGRA? | Big Lagoon contends the eleven-acre parcel is Indian lands entrusted to it. | Carcieri-based view questions under-1934 jurisdiction; eleven-acre parcel not qualifying. | No; the eleven-acre parcel was not Indian lands under IGRA because Big Lagoon was not under federal jurisdiction in 1934. |
| Does Guidiville govern whether Land status must be current rather than historical for IGRA purposes? | Guidiville supports requiring present status of lands for IGRA. | Carcieri clarifies tribal status implications; post-enactment status may differ. | Guidiville governs the current-lands requirement; Big Lagoon’s 1934 status disfavors eleven-acre eligibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gaming, 531 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2008) (IGRA requires a tribe have Indian lands at time of filing)
- Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (U.S. 2009) (trust authority depends on 1934 federal jurisdiction)
- Engler v. Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band, 304 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2002) (interpretation of IGRA lands and negotiation prerequisites)
- Rincon Band of Luiseño Mission Indians v. Schwarzenegger, 602 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010) (revenue sharing tethered to IGRA purposes and not a bad faith bargaining device)
- Wind River Mining Corp. v. United States, 946 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1991) (timing for challenging agency action; application/enforcement analogue)
- City of Santa Clara v. Andrus, 572 F.2d 660 (9th Cir. 1978) (administrative acts and trust-related governmental actions)