Gila River Indian Community v. United States
697 F.3d 886
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Gila Bend Act replaced 9,880 acres of reservation lands; Nation may acquire replacement lands in trust under §6(d) and cap under §6(c). Parcel 2 is a 54-acre county island surrounded by Glendale, located in Maricopa County outside Glendale’s corporate limits. Nation purchased Parcel 2 in 2003 as part of a larger 135-acre deal; Nation sought trust for Parcel 2 in 2009. Glendale challenged the trust; there was state court litigation over annexation; Interior treated the trust filing as ex parte with limited notice. Secretary of the Interior held Parcel 2 in trust, applying the Gila Bend Act; district court denied de novo review and upheld the Secretary’s decision under Chevron deference. This appeal concerns the interpretation of §6(c) and §6(d) and whether trust of Parcel 2 conflicts with state sovereignty and federalism principles, but does not address gaming itself.
- The decision below affirmed the trust designation for Parcel 2, concluding the Secretary’s interpretation of the Act was reasonable and Chevron deference applied; the case involved constitutional and sovereignty arguments that were not necessary to resolve gaming questions.
- The Land Holders/Parties framing the dispute include the Nation seeking to place Parcel 2 in trust for a potential casino project, Glendale opposing the trust to preserve zoning and annexation rights, and the Interior Department applying the Gila Bend Act provisions to determine Parcel 2’s eligibility under §6(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §6(c) caps total land acquired or only land placed in trust | Glendale: cap applies to total acquisition under the Act | Nation/Secretary: cap applies to land held in trust under §6(d) | Cap applies to land held in trust; Parcel 2 would be within cap as the Nation’s second trust acquisition |
| Whether Parcel 2 is within the City of Glendale’s corporate limits under §6(d) | Glendale: Parcel 2 is within corporate limits; ineligible for trust | Interior: parcel on unincorporated side of boundary; not within corporate limits; Chevron deferential review | Parcel 2 is not within Glendale’s corporate limits for trust purposes; eligible under the Act |
| Whether the Gila Bend Act exceeds Congress’s power under the Indian Commerce Clause or violates the Tenth Amendment | Act intrudes on state sovereignty; unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment | Act falls within Congress’s plenary power over Indian affairs under the Indian Commerce Clause | Act valid under Indian Commerce Clause; Tenth Amendment not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency action under APA)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (establishes deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes (Chevron))
- Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (U.S. 2009) (Chevron step-two deference to reasonable agency interpretations in some contexts)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U.S. 407 (U.S. 1992) (deference/interpretation in regulatory context)
- Flagstaff Vending Co. v. City of Flagstaff, 578 P.2d 985 (Ariz. 1978) (Arizona Supreme Court on whether land can be treated as within city boundaries for local regulation)