918 F.3d 610
9th Cir.2019Background
- Frank’s Landing Indian Community (not federally recognized) sought approval to conduct class II gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
- IGRA allows an “Indian tribe” to conduct class II gaming; it defines “Indian tribe” as a group “recognized as eligible by the Secretary” for federal Indian programs and services.
- Frank’s Landing received statutory recognition in 1987 and a 1994 amendment declaring it eligible for certain programs but expressly stating the amendment did not constitute federal recognition and barring class III gaming.
- The Community submitted a class II gaming ordinance in 2014; Interior (Assistant Secretary–Indian Affairs and Solicitor) concluded the Community is not federally recognized and therefore ineligible under IGRA.
- The Gaming Commission declined to review the ordinance; the Community sued. The district court granted summary judgment for Interior; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IGRA requires Secretarial (federal) recognition to qualify as an “Indian tribe” for IGRA purposes | Frank’s Landing: IGRA’s reference to eligibility for "special programs and services" covers the Community because Congress already declared it eligible; Secretary’s recognition language is not a prerequisite | Interior: IGRA’s phrase "recognized as eligible by the Secretary" requires formal Secretarial (federal) recognition and inclusion on the Secretary’s annual list | Held: IGRA unambiguously requires Secretarial (federal) recognition; non‑federally recognized groups cannot invoke IGRA gaming rights |
| Whether the Frank’s Landing Act (1987/1994) independently authorizes the Community to conduct class II gaming despite lack of federal recognition | Frank’s Landing: Because Congress used similar language, the Act implicitly authorizes class I/II gaming; express ban on class III implies class I/II permitted | Interior: The 1994 amendment expressly disclaims federal recognition and explicitly bars class III; absence of Secretarial recognition and contextual statutes (List Act) show Congress did not authorize IGRA gaming | Held: The Frank’s Landing Act does not authorize the Community to engage in IGRA class II gaming; the statute unambiguously precludes such an interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (establishing IGRA’s purpose and federal regulation of Indian gaming)
- Artichoke Joe’s California Grand Casino v. Norton, 353 F.3d 712 (discussing that IGRA covers federally recognized tribes)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (framework for agency deference; court reached same result de novo)
- Pit River Home & Agric. Coop. Ass’n v. United States, 30 F.3d 1088 (interpreting "recognized by the Secretary" as requiring federal recognition)
- Dolan v. U.S. Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481 (statutory interpretation principles)
- F.A.A. v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (Congress’s use of terms of art and statutory construction)
- South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329 (presumption that Congress knows existing law when legislating)