Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Department of the Interior
919 F. Supp. 2d 51
D.D.C.2013Background
- consolidated action under the IRA, IGRA, and NEPA challenging DOI actions to acquire the Madera Site in trust and authorize gaming; two Records of Decision: IGRA ROD (Sept. 2011) and IRA ROD (Nov. 2012) supporting Alternative A; fee-to-trust transfer announced Dec. 3, 2012 with 30-day window; Stand Up and Picayune plaintiffs challenge both decisions, with Stand Up seeking preliminary injunction; motion practice includes government’s venue transfer motion and plaintiffs’ injunction motion; court retains this forum to resolve the challenges before transfer could imperil relief; issue revolves around statutory authority, process, NEPA implications, and public-interest considerations to grant relief.
- The North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians seeks to operate class III gaming on the Madera Site by having the land acquired in trust and by permitting gaming on trust land; the North Fork Tribe intervened in the suit; the government defendants include DOI, BIA, and Interior Secretary; the Stand Up plaintiffs allege multiple statutory violations, improper record, and failure to comply with NEPA/IGRA; the court denies both the transfer and the injunction, applying a sliding-scale framework and APA standards while deferring to agency expertise.
- The court held that (a) the Secretary’s authority to acquire land in trust for North Fork under the IRA is reasonable under Carcieri; (b) the Secretary’s handling of the Governor’s concurrence and the record-sharing requirements under IGRA did not amount to a procedural defect warranting relief; (c) the IGRA-related determinations about “surrounding community” impacts and mitigation measures were rational and entitled to deference in light of the FEIS; (d) the NEPA analysis including evaluation of alternatives and environmental impacts was sufficiently thorough; and (e) the venue transfer motion was denied to avoid depriving plaintiffs of timely injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Secretary’s authority to acquire land in trust under IRA (Carcieri issue) | North Fork not under federal jurisdiction in 1934; authority not supported | Record shows North Fork was under Federal jurisdiction via prior 1916 purchase and 1935 IRA election; cognizant interpretation of 'recognized Indian tribe' | Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed; Secretary’s authority reasonable |
| Record-sharing requirements under IGRA (entire application record) | Governor should have received complete record including IRA ROD | IRA/IGRA sequencing requires prior trustee action before gaming concurrence; record-sharing interpretation not including IRA ROD | Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed; procedural claim failings were not shown to affect validity |
| IGRA: surrounding community impacts and mitigation | Secretary ignored comments on crime, problem gambling, water, and sovereignty | Secretary properly considered impacts within 25-mile radius and relied on FEIS/mitigation measures | Arguments unlikely to succeed; deference to agency judgments sustained |
| NEPA: reasonable alternatives and hard look | Old Mill site and other alternatives not adequately explored; hard look lacking | Secretary analyzed alternatives and explained why others were rejected; substantial record evidence | Arguments unlikely to succeed; alternatives and impact analysis deemed reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (U.S. 2009) (defines 'under Federal jurisdiction' for IRA trust eligibility; supports agency authority scope)
- Patchak v. Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, 132 S. Ct. 2199 (U.S. 2012) (limits to Quiet Title Act challenges post-transfer; informs jurisdictional posture)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (necessity of balancing four-factor test for preliminary injunctions; public interest considerations)
- Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 15 F.3d 1112 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (court-wide standard of reasonableness in agency decisionmaking)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) (persuasive agency interpretations given respect in decisionmaking)