Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon v. Jewell
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13779
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- The Cowlitz Indian Tribe, historically from SW Washington, obtained federal acknowledgment in 2002 and applied to have a 151.87-acre parcel in Clark County taken into trust as their initial reservation for tribal facilities and a casino.
- Clark County (local residents and competing gambling businesses) and the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde (a competing casino operator) challenged the Interior Secretary’s decisions under the APA, arguing (inter alia) that the Cowlitz do not qualify as “Indians” under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) and that the parcel does not meet IGRA’s initial-reservation exception; NEPA and membership/roll verification claims were also raised.
- The Secretary relied on the administrative federal-acknowledgment (2002) and applied a two-part test for whether a tribe was “now under Federal jurisdiction” in 1934, concluding historical federal dealings with the Cowlitz satisfied the IRA’s jurisdictional requirement.
- The Secretary also found the parcel was within an area where the Tribe has significant historical connections, meeting the IGRA initial-reservation regulatory standard permitting gaming.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to Interior and the Cowlitz; the D.C. Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges under the IRA, IGRA, NEPA, and claims regarding Section 83.12(b) membership verification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “recognized” in 25 U.S.C. § 479 requires recognition as of 1934 | Grand Ronde: "recognized" is political and must exist in 1934; Cowlitz cannot show that | Jewell: “recognized” need not be time‑limited; federal acknowledgment in 2002 suffices | Court: "recognized" is ambiguous; agency reasonably concluded recognition can occur post‑1934 and deferred to Interior |
| Meaning of “now under Federal jurisdiction” (IRA) | Plaintiffs: requires a formal government‑to‑government relationship in 1934 | Interior: two‑part test—(1) historical federal actions before/at 1934 showing obligations/responsibility; (2) status remained in 1934 | Court: phrase ambiguous; two‑part test reasonable and supported by record of federal dealings with Cowlitz |
| Whether the land meets IGRA’s initial‑reservation exception (significant historical connections) | Plaintiffs: agency applied wrong/too broad standard; significant connections to the parcel itself lacking | Interior: regulation requires connections to an area where tribe has significant historical ties; record shows use/occupancy in vicinity | Court: substantial evidence supports finding of significant historical connections; regulation reasonably interpreted to permit vicinity evidence |
| Whether Interior violated NEPA / 25 C.F.R. § 83.12(b) by failing to verify Tribe’s business plan, membership growth, and unmet‑needs figures | Clark County: agency should have independently verified membership and economic claims affecting alternatives analysis | Interior: membership/business plan are tribal sovereign matters; no obligation was raised under § 83.12(b) before agency; NEPA’s verification rule does not apply to these non‑environmental socioeconomic figures | Court: claims forfeited or inapplicable; no NEPA/§83.12(b) violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009) (held “now under Federal jurisdiction” unambiguously refers to tribes under federal jurisdiction in 1934)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for judicial deference to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes)
- Cty. of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251 (1992) (context on Indian‑policy aims and IRA background)
- City of Roseville v. Norton, 348 F.3d 1020 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (explains IGRA exceptions protect tribes lacking reservations at IGRA enactment)
- Diamond Game Enters. v. Reno, 230 F.3d 365 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (IGRA’s purpose to promote tribal economic development through gaming)
- Mich. Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne, 525 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (IRA’s remedial aims and deference to agency interpretations)