Butte County, California v. Jonodev Chaudhuri
887 F.3d 501
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Mechoopda Tribe regained federal recognition in 1992 and sought to have a 645-acre Chico, CA parcel taken into trust to operate a casino under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s “restored-lands” exception.
- The Secretary of the Interior initially approved the trust in 2008, but this court vacated that decision because the Secretary failed to explain rejection of a 2006 expert report by Dr. Stephen Beckham and remanded for further proceedings. Butte Cty. v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
- On remand the Secretary reopened the record, allowed the Tribe an extension to submit an expert report (Dr. Shelly Tiley), gave the County a 20-day window to reply, then granted the trust application in January 2014.
- Butte County challenged procedurally (reopening the record, granting the Tribe an extension, inadequate time to respond) and substantively (decision arbitrary and capricious because Tribe lacked a historical connection to the parcel) under the Administrative Procedure Act.
- The district court upheld the Secretary; the D.C. Circuit affirmed, rejecting all procedural objections and finding the Secretary’s historical-connection analysis rational.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Butte County) | Defendant's Argument (Secretary/Tribe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Secretary abused discretion by reopening the administrative record on remand | Reopening was improper after this court’s remand | Agency has broad discretion to accept new evidence on remand | Affirmed: reopening was within Secretary’s discretion |
| Whether granting Tribe a 15-day extension for its submission was improper | Extension procured by misleading/ex parte contact; unfair advantage | Granting extensions is permissible in informal adjudication; ex parte not per se invalid | Affirmed: extension permissible; no APA violation |
| Whether 20 days to respond to Tribe’s report was inadequate | 20 days was insufficient; resulted in exclusion of Beckham’s 2014 evidence | No entitlement to rebuttal in informal adjudication; County had ~60 days overall and requested no extension | Affirmed: 20-day deadline reasonable; no gross procedural error |
| Whether Secretary’s decision was arbitrary and capricious on historical-connection question | Modern Mechoopda are not biological descendants of pre-1850 tribe; Secretary ignored census and reports showing multi-ethnic Rancheria | Secretary reasonably found cultural and political integration and direct historical ties; relied on proximity, village use, spiritual sites, treaty history | Affirmed: decision rational; historical-connection findings supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Roseville v. Norton, 348 F.3d 1020 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (describing purpose of restored-lands exception)
- Butte Cty. v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (vacating initial trust decision for failure to address Beckham report)
- Chamber of Commerce v. SEC, 443 F.3d 890 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (agencies have discretion to reopen records)
- Tennis Channel, Inc. v. FCC, 827 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (discussing reopening record on remand and agency discretion)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 768 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (review generally limited to the record before the agency)
- Steel Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 27 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (agency decisions may be upheld on any adequate and independent basis)