Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon v. Jewell
75 F. Supp. 3d 387
D.D.C.2014Background
- This APA/IRA/IGRA/NEPA action challenges the Secretary of the Interior's April 2013 decision to take 152 acres in trust for the Cowlitz Indian Tribe in Clark County, Washington and to allow gaming there.
- The Tribe sought to establish an initial reservation under the IRA; the NIGC approved tribal gaming under IGRA's initial reservation exception, and the Secretary issued an ROD accepting the Parcel into trust and permitting gaming.
- The Cowlitz were federally acknowledged in 2002; the Secretary applied a two-part test to determine whether the Tribe was 'under federal jurisdiction' in 1934 and whether it was a 'recognized' tribe under Section 19 of the IRA.
- The Secretary concluded the Cowlitz were a 'recognized' tribe and were under federal jurisdiction as of 1934 based on a broad course of dealings, including treaties, allotments, education, health services, and administrative actions through 1934.
- Plaintiffs (Grand Ronde and Clark County/ Vancouver area interests) allege the Secretary erred in interpretation of 'recognized' and 'under federal jurisdiction,' and in how 'significant historical connections' and the 'initial reservation' criteria were applied, also raising NEPA standing and SEIS/mitigation concerns.
- The court ultimately denied the plaintiffs' summary judgment motions and granted the defendants' cross-motions, upholding the Secretary's determinations on recognition, jurisdiction, and IGRA/NEPA compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 'recognized' Indian tribe and 'now under Federal jurisdiction' under Section 19 are interpreted reasonably. | Grand Ronde contends recognition must be as of 1934 and a contemporaneous 1934 recognition is required. | Defendant asserts the term is ambiguous and Chevron requires deference to the Secretary's reasonable interpretation that recognition can occur post-1934. | Secretary's interpretation is reasonable; Chevron applies. |
| Whether the Secretary’s 'two-part test' for 'under federal jurisdiction' in 1934 is valid and properly applied to the Cowlitz. | Plaintiffs argue the test misreads § 479 and legislative history and would improperly broaden federal jurisdiction. | Defendant maintains the test is a permissible, reasoned construction informed by agency expertise. | Two-part test affirmed as reasonable and entitled to deference. |
| Whether the Cowlitz membership expansion undermines the Secretary's trust-taking authority under 25 C.F.R. § 83.12. | Clark County argues the Secretary failed to review membership changes and whether they satisfied § 83.12. | Defendants contend waiver and administrative were adequate and arguments were not sufficiently raised administratively. | Plaintiffs' challenge on membership review waived; Secretary's authority sustained. |
| Whether the Parcel qualifies as IGRA 'initial reservation' and supports gaming within the intended scope. | Grand Ronde argues the Parcel is outside historical territory and the 'significant historical connection' is too broad. | Defendants argue the standard is satisfied by 'vicinity' occupancy/use and the Secretary's application of Scotts Valley. | Parcel satisfies 'significant historical connection' and initial reservation; gaming permitted. |
| NEPA compliance and standing: whether Grand Ronde has standing and whether the FEIS adequately analyzes water and other impacts. | Grand Ronde lacks Article III standing; NEPA claims insufficient evidence of injury; water impacts not fully analyzed. | FEIS analyzed water resources; ESA mitigation and alternatives were considered; NEPA's 'hard look' satisfied; standing deficiencies as to Grand Ronde. | Grand Ronde standing dismissed; NEPA challenges rejected on the merits; FEIS deemed adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (U.S. 2009) (defines 'now under Federal jurisdiction' as of 1934; discusses implications for recognition)
- Citizens Exposing Truth About Casinos v. Kempthorne, 492 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (affirms IGRA 'initial reservation' concept; scope of historical connections)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-step framework for agency interpretation of ambiguous statutes)
- Bowen v. American Hosp. Ass'n, 476 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1986) (Chevron deference framework: agency interpretation must be reasonable)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1989) (NEPA hard look; mitigation discussion scope)
- City of Grapevine v. Department of Transportation, 17 F.3d 1502 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (rule of reason in evaluating environmental alternatives)
- TOMAC v. Norton, 433 F.3d 852 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (gloss on termination/recognition issues in federal Indian law)
- United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (U.S. 1978) (recognizes federal jurisdiction can persist despite lapses)