Redding Rancheria v. Kenneth Salazar
776 F.3d 706
9th Cir.2015Background
- Redding Ranchería is a restored tribe seeking Interior to take into trust ~232 acres (Strawberry Fields) for a new casino; Secretary denied the request under IGRA/regulations.
- Tribe previously had federal recognition restored (1984) and opened a small casino (Win‑River) on earlier-trusted lands after a 1999 compact.
- IGRA generally bars gaming on lands acquired after 1988 but §2719(b)(1)(B) exempts "restored" tribes for "restored lands." Secretary promulgated 25 C.F.R. §292.12 (2008) to define temporal, modern, historical connections for ‘‘restored lands.’’
- §292.12(c) provides two temporal paths: (1) lands included in the tribe’s first post‑restoration land request; or (2) application submitted within 25 years of restoration and the tribe "is not gaming on other lands." Strawberry Fields failed (1) and, under (2), the Tribe was gaming on other land (Win‑River).
- Tribe offered in a December 14, 2010 letter to close Win‑River once Strawberry Fields opened; the Secretary’s December 22, 2010 denial did not address that offer. District court granted summary judgment to the government; Ninth Circuit affirmed regulation but remanded for agency consideration of the Tribe’s proposed relocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of §292.12(c) temporal limitation (prevents additional casinos on restored land) | Regulation is unreasonable and not grounded in statute; limits Tribe’s restored‑lands rights | Regulation is a permissible gap‑filling implementation of IGRA to prevent expanded gaming by restored tribes | Regulation is reasonable and owed deference; affirmed |
| Applicability of Indian‑law canon (resolve ambiguity in favor of tribes) | Ambiguity requires liberal construction favoring Tribe | Chevron/agency deference outweighs Indian canon when agency administers statute | Canon inapplicable here; agency deference controls; affirmed |
| Whether agency changed policy arbitrarily (past Elk Valley decision) | Agency inconsistent with prior practice; decision arbitrary | Agency explained rationale when promulgating §292.12; permissible policy change | No unexplained change; agency provided minimal explanation; affirmed |
| Whether agency arbitrarily ignored Tribe’s offer to close Win‑River (decide based on application date vs. future intent) | Tribe offered to close Win‑River upon opening Strawberry Fields; agency should consider relocation as satisfying §292.12(c)(2) | Regulation requires tribe "is not gaming on other lands" at time of application; future intent irrelevant; Secretary not required to accept post‑hoc offer | Remanded: regulation stands, but agency must consider Tribe’s relocation proposal because the administrative record never addressed whether a replacement move would satisfy the temporal prong; vacatur in part and remand for agency consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Roseville v. Norton, 348 F.3d 1020 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (background on federal termination/recognition policies)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency statutory interpretation deference)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) (deference depends on agency’s rulemaking/notice-and-comment context)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (deference to agency’s interpretation of its own regulation)
- Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759 (1985) (Indian‑canon of construction articulated)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard)
- Haynes v. United States, 891 F.2d 235 (9th Cir. 1989) (Ninth Circuit declining to apply Indian canon where agency deference implicated)