959 F.3d 1154
9th Cir.2020Background
- North Fork Rancheria applied to have 305 acres in Madera County taken into trust and developed as a hotel and casino; DOI completed an EIS and CAA conformity determination during the fee‑to‑trust process that were earlier upheld in related litigation.
- Tribal‑state compact negotiations with California broke down after a voter referendum; a district court found California failed to negotiate in good faith, appointed a mediator who selected the tribe’s proposed compact, and the Secretary then issued Secretarial Procedures under IGRA to authorize class III gaming on the parcel.
- Stand Up for California! and others sued the DOI challenging the Secretarial Procedures, asserting (1) they conflict with the Johnson Act (and so violate the APA), (2) NEPA was not followed (no new EIS required), (3) the CAA conformity requirement was not met, and (4) a FOIA claim (not appealed).
- The district court granted summary judgment to the DOI and North Fork on all appealed claims; appellants appealed all except the FOIA claim.
- The Ninth Circuit (Gould, Cir. J.) affirms as to the Johnson Act/APA issue, and vacates and remands on NEPA and CAA issues for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Secretarial Procedures are subject to the Johnson Act (APA challenge) | Secretarial Procedures are not expressly exempt by IGRA and thus Johnson Act prohibits slot machines on Indian lands | IGRA’s structure, purpose, and prior agency/board practice imply Secretarial Procedures are exempt; denying exemption would nullify IGRA’s remedial scheme | Affirmed for defendants: Secretarial Procedures are an exception to Johnson Act prohibitions; Chevron and Indian canons support this reading |
| Whether the Secretary was categorically exempt from NEPA (EIS requirement) | Secretary must complete an EIS before prescribing Secretarial Procedures | IGRA’s mandatory prescription limits Secretary’s discretion so the ‘rule of reason’ precludes NEPA here | Vacated/remanded: IGRA does not categorically displace NEPA; district court must decide if Procedures are a major Federal action and whether the prior EIS suffices or must be supplemented |
| Whether a CAA conformity determination was required | Secretary was required to make a conformity determination for Secretarial Procedures | IGRA/process is not subject to CAA; EPA regulation allegedly exempts rulemaking from conformity | Vacated/remanded: CAA requirements are not categorically precluded; district court should determine whether the prior conformity determination suffices for these Procedures |
| Scope of Secretary’s authority under IGRA to consider other federal laws | Secretary is bound to adopt mediator’s selected compact consistency list and thus has no discretion to consider other federal laws | Secretary retains some discretion in formulating Procedures and must avoid violating other federal law | Held for defendants on discretion point: Secretary has at least some discretion and may consider/apply other federal laws when prescribing Procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. 103 Electronic Gambling Devices, 223 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2000) (harmonizing IGRA and Johnson Act; implied exception to Johnson Act where necessary to avoid nullifying IGRA)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency deference to reasonable statutory interpretations)
- Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004) (NEPA’s ‘rule of reason’ requires a reasonably close causal relationship and agency discretion to trigger EIS)
- Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri, 837 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016) (NEPA generally applies and public laws should be administered consistent with NEPA)
- San Luis & Delta‑Mendota Water Authority v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2014) (discussing when a substantive statute may or may not displace NEPA)
- Sturgeon v. Frost, 136 S. Ct. 1061 (2016) (statutory construction principle: read words in context and to give effect to all provisions)
- Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (2009) (statutory construction—give effect to all provisions; avoid rendering text superfluous)