New Mexico v. Department of the Interior
854 F.3d 1207
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- New Mexico sued the Department of the Interior (DOI) seeking a declaration that 25 C.F.R. § 291 et seq. (Part 291) is invalid; Part 291 authorizes the Interior Secretary to prescribe Class III gaming procedures for tribes when an IGRA suit against a state is dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds.
- The Pueblo of Pojoaque intervened after its IGRA suit against New Mexico was dismissed on sovereign-immunity grounds and the Tribe requested Secretarial procedures under Part 291.
- IGRA (25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)) creates a detailed remedial sequence: tribe requests negotiations; if no compact after 180 days the tribe may sue; a court finding of bad faith triggers court-ordered negotiation/mediation and, only after those steps fail, authority for the Secretary to prescribe procedures.
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida held Congress could not abrogate state sovereign immunity under the Indian Commerce Clause, preventing many IGRA suits from proceeding to the statutory judicial finding of bad faith.
- DOI promulgated Part 291 to fill the gap created by Seminole Tribe by allowing Secretarial procedures when a tribe’s IGRA suit is dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds; New Mexico challenged those regulations.
- The district court granted summary judgment to New Mexico, invalidated Part 291, and enjoined DOI from using it; DOI and the Tribe appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (New Mexico) | Defendant's Argument (DOI / Secretary / Pojoaque) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Part 291 deprives the State of IGRA procedural protections (judicial bad-faith finding) and forces a choice to participate or forfeit input — this is an injury. | No concrete injury; regulations cause no cognizable harm. | New Mexico has standing (procedural injury and forced-choice injury). |
| Ripeness | Challenge to final agency rule is ripe because Part 291 is final, purely legal, and already imposes an immediate forced-choice impact on the State. | Not ripe until Secretary actually prescribes procedures for the Tribe. | Claim is ripe; all ripeness factors favor review. |
| Validity under IGRA / Chevron step-one (can Secretary issue procedures after dismissal on sovereign-immunity grounds?) | Part 291 conflicts with IGRA’s unambiguous remedial scheme that conditions Secretarial procedures on a judicial bad-faith finding and subsequent mediation steps. | Seminole Tribe created a gap; statute is ambiguous as to Secretary’s role in cases where sovereign immunity short-circuits the judicial process, so agency interpretation is permissible. | IGRA unambiguously forecloses Part 291; regulations invalid (no Chevron deference). |
| Severability of IGRA’s jurisdiction-granting clause | (Pojoaque) Seminole Tribe nullified §2710(d)(7)’s jurisdictional grant and that infirmity renders other IGRA provisions nonseverable. | (New Mexico / DOI) Severability clause and other mechanisms (state waivers, United States suits, states not raising immunity) show IGRA can function; do not invalidate the whole Act. | The jurisdiction-granting provision is severable; remainder of IGRA survives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (Eleventh Amendment bars Congress from authorizing suits by tribes against unconsenting states under the Indian Commerce Clause)
- California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) (federal preemption limits state regulation of gaming on Indian lands; prompted IGRA)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (two-step framework for judicial review of agency statutory interpretation)
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. AT&T Co., 512 U.S. 218 (1994) (agency may not fundamentally revise a statutory scheme beyond congressional design)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing doctrine; procedural injuries can confer standing where designed to protect a concrete interest)
- Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2007) (Fifth Circuit panel decision addressing standing and invalidity of Part 291; persuasive precedent for standing and Chevron step-one analysis)