830 F.3d 552
D.C. Cir.2016Background
- The Cowlitz Tribe, historically from southwestern Washington, were federally acknowledged in 2002 after a long period during which the government treated them as effectively non-existent; immediately thereafter they sought to have a 151.87-acre parcel in Clark County taken into trust as an "initial reservation" and to develop tribal facilities including a casino.
- Clark County, nearby homeowners, and competing gambling interests, plus the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde (competitor casino owner), challenged the Interior Secretary’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging violations of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), NEPA, and a 1994 IRA regulation on membership rolls (25 C.F.R. § 83.12(b)).
- The Secretary accepted historical evidence of U.S. interactions with the Cowlitz (treaty negotiations, agency dealings, allotments, services, etc.) and concluded the Cowlitz were a "recognized Indian tribe" for purposes of IRA § 479 and satisfied the IRA’s "now under Federal jurisdiction" requirement using a two-part test (show historical federal dealings before or at 1934 and that jurisdictional status remained intact in 1934).
- The Secretary also found the parcel met the IGRA initial-reservation exception because it lay within an area where the Tribe had "significant historical connections," based on multiple historical indicators of use and presence within the vicinity.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Interior and the Cowlitz; the D.C. Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims that (1) "recognized" must mean recognition in 1934, (2) the jurisdictional test was improperly applied, (3) the IGRA initial-reservation standard was misapplied, and (4) Interior had procedural/NEPA duties to independently verify the Tribe’s business plan and membership figures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "recognized" in 25 U.S.C. § 479 requires recognition in 1934 | Plaintiffs: "recognized" is political and must have existed in 1934 | Interior: "now" temporally modifies "under Federal jurisdiction," not "recognized"; recognition may occur later | Court: "recognized" is ambiguous; defer to Interior—recognition at time of trust acquisition suffices |
| Meaning of "now under Federal jurisdiction" in § 479 | Plaintiffs: requires formal government-to-government relationship by 1934; Cowlitz not under jurisdiction then | Interior: two-part, contextual test (historic federal actions before/at 1934 and status intact in 1934); record shows sufficient dealings | Court: phrase ambiguous; Secretary’s two-part test and its application were reasonable and supported by record |
| Whether parcel meets IGRA initial-reservation exception ("significant historical connections") | Plaintiffs: Secretary used wrong/too lenient standard; must show connections to parcel itself; agency departed from precedent | Interior: regulation requires significant historical connections to the area/vicinity; evidence supports natural inference of use | Court: Secretary applied appropriate, permissive regulatory standard; substantial evidence supports finding of significant historical connections |
| Alleged duties to verify Tribe membership/business plan (NEPA and § 83.12(b)) | Clark County: Interior should have independently verified large post-acknowledgment membership increase and unmet-needs figures; NEPA/§ 83.12(b) required verification | Interior: challenges to membership roll under § 83.12(b) were not raised administratively; business plan/economic planning is tribal self-determination and not environmental information under 40 C.F.R. § 1506.5(a) | Court: claims forfeited or inapplicable; no NEPA/§ 83.12(b) violation; Secretary not required to verify the socio-economic figures here |
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 review of agency statutory interpretation)
- City of Roseville v. Norton, 348 F.3d 1020 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (IGRA exceptions prevent disadvantaging tribes without reservations when IGRA enacted)
- Diamond Game Enters. v. Reno, 230 F.3d 365 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (IGRA’s purpose: promote tribal economic development and self-sufficiency)
- Mich. Gambling Opp’n v. Kempthorne, 525 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (context on IRA remedial purpose and trust acquisitions)
- Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Cmty. v. Jewell, 75 F. Supp. 3d 387 (D.D.C. 2014) (district court decision granting summary judgment to Interior; affirmed here)