Jamul Action Committee v. Jonodev Chaudhuri
837 F.3d 958
9th Cir.2016Background
- The Jamul Indian Village (a federally recognized tribe) proposed and revised a Class III casino in Jamul, CA; NIGC approved a revised gaming ordinance in 2013 and construction began in 2014.
- A local coalition (JAC) sued, arguing NIGC violated NEPA by approving the 2013 gaming ordinance without preparing an environmental review or EIS; they sought a writ of mandamus under the APA to compel NEPA compliance.
- IGRA requires NIGC to approve a tribal gaming ordinance within 90 days of submission, and failure to act results in automatic approval to the extent the ordinance complies with IGRA.
- NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an EIS for ‘‘major Federal action’’ and prescribes multi-step procedures (notice, scoping, draft EIS, public comment, final EIS, record of decision) that take well more than 90 days.
- The district court denied JAC’s mandamus petition; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that IGRA’s mandatory 90‑day approval deadline creates an irreconcilable statutory conflict with NEPA, so NEPA’s EIS requirement is inapplicable to NIGC’s ordinance approval timeline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NIGC must conduct NEPA review (EIS/SEIS) before approving a tribal gaming ordinance | NIGC’s approval of the 2013 ordinance is a "major federal action" and NEPA requires an environmental review before approval | IGRA’s mandatory 90‑day approval deadline makes NEPA compliance impossible; therefore NEPA does not apply | Held: NEPA displaced by irreconcilable conflict with IGRA’s 90‑day mandatory timeline; NIGC not required to prepare an EIS prior to approval |
Key Cases Cited
- Flint Ridge Dev. Co. v. Scenic Rivers Ass’n of Okla., 426 U.S. 776 (1976) (NEPA displaced where statute mandating a short fixed timeline makes EIS process impossible)
- North County Cmty. All. v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2009) (addressed NEPA only as tied to an Indian‑lands determination; no major‑federal‑action found in that context)
- Jones v. Gordon, 792 F.2d 821 (9th Cir. 1986) (agency‑imposed deadlines or agency‑controllable triggers do not create Flint Ridge conflict)
- Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. AT&T Corp., 295 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002) (IGRA tacit approval after statutory period is final agency action)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) (NEPA requires agencies to take a ‘hard look’ at environmental consequences)