Gila River Indian Community v. United States
776 F. Supp. 2d 977
D. Ariz.2011Background
- DOI taken Parcel 2 (54 acres) of a 135-acre tract near Glendale into trust for the Tohono O'odham Nation on July 23, 2010.
- Nation plans a Las Vegas–style casino; Glendale, Gila River Community, and others oppose; case focuses on APA, IGRA, and constitutional challenges.
- Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act (1986) governs land replacement and trust-taking under §6; IGRA governs gaming eligibility but not the trust authority itself.
- Parcel 2 is an unincorporated county island surrounded by Glendale; ownership and annexation history relevant to §6(d).
- Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief; the court grants summary judgment for Defendants, upholding DOI's Trust Decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOI's §6(d) interpretation was reasonable | Glendale/Community contend §6(d) requires outside corporate limits meaning. | DOI's interpretation is permissible and entitled to Chevron deference. | Yes; DOI's interpretation upheld. |
| Waiver of §6(c) accounting challenge | Waiver should not bar review; extrinsic evidence shows §6(c) exceedance. | Waived because not raised in administrative proceedings; cannot be considered. | Waived; not reviewable. |
| Whether Parcel 2 lies within Glendale's corporate limits under §6(d) | Parcel 2 is within Glendale's corporate limits; thus not eligible. | Within means within the corporate limits, or alternatively within the unincorporated area; ambiguity requires deference to DOI. | Ambiguous; Chevron deference applied; DOI proper interpretation upheld. |
| IGRA requirement before the Gila Bend Act trust decision | IGRA gaming eligibility determination must precede trust acquisition. | IGRA does not require pre-trust gaming determination; trust could be mandatory under the Act regardless of IGRA. | DOI did not violate IGRA; Trust Decision not arbitrary or capricious. |
| Tenth Amendment and Indian Commerce Clause challenges | Trust decision impermissibly intrudes on state sovereignty; exceeds Congress's powers in Indian affairs. | Congress has plenary power over Indian affairs; action is within Article I authority. | No constitutional violation; summary judgment for Defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (deferential review for agency interpretations of statutes)
- Citizens Exposing Truth about Casinos v. Kempthorne, 492 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (agency interpretations with force of law; Chevron deference context)
- Ninilchik Traditional Council v. United States, 227 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2000) (Chevron applicability to agency interpretations)
- Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158 (2007) (agency interpretations given deference; plain vs ambiguous statutes)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) (defining when Chevron deference applies)
- Flagstaff Vending Co. v. City of Flagstaff, 578 P.2d 985 (Ariz. 1978) (within corporate limits; municipal annexation context)
- Speros v. Yu, 83 P.3d 1094 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003) (within exterior boundary concept in Arizona)
- Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 68 P.3d 428 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003) (within exterior boundary of a city concept)
- Carcieri v. Kempthorne, 497 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2007) (federal power to take land into trust for Indians)
- County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 470 U.S. 226 (1985) (plenary power over Indian affairs)