Kalispel Tribe of Indians v. Usdoi, 999 F.3d 683

Background

Kalispel Tribe operates Northern Quest Resort & Casino in Airway Heights, within Spokane historic territory; Spokane Tribe obtained 145 acres in trust nearby and applied to open an off‑reservation casino.
Under IGRA, the Secretary must make a two‑part determination for lands acquired after IGRA’s enactment: (1) whether gaming is in the tribe’s best interest and (2) whether it would be detrimental to the surrounding community.
The Secretary conducted consultations and NEPA review (draft and final EIS), received competing economic studies: Kalispel’s reports predicted severe, sustained revenue loss, diminished per‑capita payments (PCEPs), and debt problems; Secretary‑commissioned studies projected smaller, dissipating impacts and substantial community benefits.
In 2015 the Secretary issued a favorable Secretarial Determination (best interest + not detrimental), finding short‑term harm to Kalispel but net benefits to the surrounding community and that Kalispel could still provide essential services.
Kalispel sued under the APA, NEPA, and IGRA; district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary and Spokane Tribe; Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper interpretation of “detrimental to the surrounding community” under §2719(b)(1)(A)	Any detriment to any member (e.g., Kalispel) necessarily makes the project "detrimental" and precludes approval	The Secretary may weigh harms and benefits across the entire surrounding community and need not deny approval based on harm to a single member	Secretary’s interpretation upheld: agency may balance detriments to some members against benefits to others; individual harm is not dispositive
Arbitrary and capricious challenge to the two‑part determination (economic impact analysis)	Secretary failed to properly evaluate or gave insufficient weight to Kalispel’s economic evidence and relied on implausible findings	Secretary considered the record, commissioned responsive studies, and made reasonable predictive judgments	Decision supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious; deference to agency predictive judgments applies
Ultra vires / departure from agency policy	Secretary acted beyond authority or contrary to earlier statements promising not to approve where a nearby tribe showed detriment	Secretary acted under express IGRA authority; Kalispel preserved no APA claim about departure below	Ultra vires claim fails; argument not preserved in district court and substance is an APA discretionary‑exercise challenge
Breach of federal trust duty to Kalispel	Secretary breached fiduciary duty by not giving Kalispel special weight when interests conflicted with Spokane Tribe’s	Trust duty extends to all tribes; agency satisfied duty by consulting, allowing participation, and addressing Kalispel’s concerns	No breach: agency adequately considered Kalispel’s interests consistent with precedent (consultation and reasoned consideration suffice)

Key Cases Cited

Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 879 F.3d 1177 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (upholding agency ability to balance community benefits against localized harms under §2719)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency review)
Dep’t of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551 (courts defer to agency decisions and do not substitute their own judgment)
Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981 (deferential review of agency predictive judgments)
Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians v. Zinke, 889 F.3d 584 (applying deference to agency projections in tribal gaming context)
Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701 (agency satisfies fiduciary duties by consulting and addressing tribal concerns)
Gros Ventre Tribe v. United States, 469 F.3d 801 (agency compliance with regulations can satisfy trust obligations)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (ultra vires principle: official acts without authority only in narrow circumstances)