889 F.3d 584
9th Cir.2018Background
- The Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria applied (2002) for the Department of the Interior to take 40 acres (the Yuba Site) into trust to build an off‑reservation casino and hotel; BIA completed NEPA/IGRA processing and issued IRA and IGRA Records of Decision (2011–2012).
- Nearby Colusa Tribe and a coalition of citizens (Citizens) challenged the trust acquisition and agency decisions under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), NEPA, and related regulations; district court granted summary judgment for defendants; plaintiffs appealed.
- Key administrative steps: EA (2004), DEIS (2008), FEIS (2010), IGRA ROD (2011) with Governor concurrence (2012), IRA ROD (Nov. 2012); land taken into trust May 2013.
- Procedural disputes included whether Enterprise qualified as a ‘‘tribe’’ under the IRA in 1934, whether the BIA adequately evaluated the tribe’s "need" and mitigation/enforcement, whether IGRA consultation rules (25‑mile radius) were validly applied, and whether the FEIS met NEPA requirements.
- Colusa submitted extra‑record economic evidence (Meister Declaration) at summary judgment; district court struck it as post‑decision extra‑record material. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court and upheld the agency decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority under IRA to take land into trust for Enterprise | Citizens: Interior lacked authority because Enterprise was not a "tribe under federal jurisdiction" in 1934 | Interior: IRA defines "tribe" to include "Indians residing on one reservation" and Section 18 election and 1915 reservation evidence show federal jurisdiction | Held: IRA authority exists; reservation residency and Section 18 election suffice to show a tribe under federal jurisdiction in 1934 |
| Whether BIA adequately considered "need" for the land (25 C.F.R. §151.11(a)) | Colusa: BIA found only desire, not need; alternative parcels exist so Yuba Site not necessary | BIA: regulations require consideration of need, not proof that only this parcel will serve needs; BIA articulated tribal economic needs and scarcity of land | Held: BIA's consideration of tribal need was adequate and not arbitrary |
| IGRA consultation and two‑part determination (incl. 25‑mile rule) | Colusa: BIA failed to consult Colusa; the 25‑mile rule is invalid; economic effects (Meister) show detriment to Colusa | BIA: complied with regulation, invited Colusa to petition for consultation beyond 25 miles; FEIS/Appendix M addressed economic impacts; Governor concurred | Held: BIA satisfied consultation requirements; 25‑mile rule challenge fails; Meister Declaration properly excluded as post‑decision extra‑record evidence; IGRA determination not arbitrary |
| NEPA adequacy of FEIS (purpose & need, alternatives, data, hard look, contractor oversight) | Colusa: Purpose/Need too narrow; failed to consider reasonable alternatives and relied on stale/inadequate data; BIA lacked independent oversight of contractor (AES) | BIA: Purpose and need was reasonably broad; FEIS analyzed five alternatives and considered comments; data and analyses were adequate; AES disclosure and BIA oversight satisfied regs | Held: FEIS satisfied NEPA (purpose & need, range of alternatives, data sufficiency, "hard look"); no showing of inadequate oversight or material conflict requiring invalidation |
Key Cases Cited
- Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (U.S. 2009) (interpreting "under Federal jurisdiction" language in the IRA)
- Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 879 F.3d 1177 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (Section 18 election can evidence tribal status/jurisdiction for IRA purposes)
- South Dakota v. United States Dep’t of the Interior, 423 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard for assessing tribal "need" under trust acquisition regs)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (U.S. 2007) (arbitrary and capricious review deferential; scope of review of agency predictive judgments)
- Tri‑Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (limits on admitting post‑decision extra‑record evidence)