Frank's Landing Indian Community v. National Indian Gaming Commission
202 F. Supp. 3d 1204
W.D. Wash.2016Background
- Plaintiff Frank’s Landing Indian Community (the Community) is a self-governing dependent Indian community whose members were recognized by Congress in 1987 and by statute in 1994, with a statutory bar on Class III gaming and a note that such recognition was not federal tribal recognition.
- In December 2014 the Community submitted a purported Class II gaming ordinance to the NIGC Chairman for approval; the Chairman asked Interior whether the Community qualifies as an "Indian tribe" under IGRA.
- The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs (AS-IA) and Interior’s Office of the Solicitor concluded the Community is not a tribe under IGRA because it is not federally recognized by the Secretary; the Chairman declined to treat the submission as an IGRA tribal ordinance.
- The Community sought reconsideration from AS-IA and the Chairman; AS-IA refused to reconsider and the Chairman did not respond; the Community then sued the NIGC and the Chairman for declaratory and injunctive relief and for arbitrary and capricious action.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the Court addressed only the Rule 12(b)(6) failure-to-state-a-claim grounds and granted the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Community is an "Indian tribe" under IGRA | Community: Congress already recognized the Community as eligible for Indian programs and self-governing, so NIGC must treat it as a tribe for IGRA purposes | NIGC: IGRA defines "Indian tribe" by recognition of the Secretary of the Interior, not Congressional recognition; NIGC cannot override Secretary | Court: Dismissed — IGRA requires Secretary recognition; Community failed to state a claim against NIGC/Chairman |
| Whether NIGC/Chairman acted arbitrarily/capriciously by relying on the Federal Register list | Community: NIGC’s reliance on the list was unlawful and arbitrary | NIGC: Reliance on Secretary’s list is mandated by IGRA/regulations; NIGC lacks authority to admit an unrecognized community | Court: Dismissed — NIGC cannot override Secretary; Agency action was not legally challengeable here |
| Whether NIGC’s refusal to accept the ordinance is reviewable by administrative appeal | Community: Denial of appeal was arbitrary and unlawful; sought administrative remedy | NIGC: IGRA’s framework makes specified NIGC decisions final for purposes of district court review; determination that a community is not an IGRA "Indian tribe" is tied to Secretary’s recognition and not a reviewable NIGC final agency action | Court: Dismissed — no statutory right to an NIGC administrative appeal on tribe-definition; dispute is with Secretary |
| Whether the Court may order NIGC to recognize Community for Class II gaming | Community: Court can compel recognition or approval | NIGC: Court cannot order NIGC to do what Congress assigned to the Secretary; NIGC has no discretion to contravene Secretary | Court: Dismissed — ordering NIGC to recognize would exceed authority and IGRA’s scheme |
Key Cases Cited
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (background on purpose of IGRA and NIGC creation)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: plausibility requirement)
- Florida Key Deer v. Paulison, 522 F.3d 1133 (11th Cir. 2008) (agency cannot be held liable for effects of actions it lacks discretion to avoid)
- Dep’t of Transp. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004) (limits on judicial relief when agency lacks discretionary authority)
- Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Babbitt, 117 F.3d 1489 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (example of challenging Secretary’s refusal to list a tribe)
- Wyandotte Nation v. Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (D. Kan. 2006) (distinguishable: NIGC issued an explicit final agency decision there, enabling judicial review)