State of Arizona v. Tohono O'Odham Nation
818 F.3d 549
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2002 the Tohono O’odham Nation and Arizona executed an IGRA compact authorizing Class III gaming on the Nation’s “Indian Lands,” and the Compact contains a broad integration clause.
- Congress enacted the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act (LRA) after federal dam-induced flooding destroyed much of the Nation’s reservation; the LRA provided $30 million and required the Nation to assign title to flooded reservation land and waive claims in exchange for settlement funds.
- In 2014 the United States took Parcel 2 (Glendale area) into trust for the Nation under the LRA; the Nation plans to build a Class III casino there.
- Arizona, the Gila River Indian Community, and the Salt River Pima–Maricopa Community sued to enjoin gaming on Parcel 2, arguing IGRA’s post‑1988 prohibition applies, the Compact implicitly bars Phoenix‑area gaming, and asserting non‑Compact tort and equitable claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Nation, holding (1) Parcel 2 qualifies under IGRA §2719’s "settlement of a land claim" exception, (2) the Compact authorizes gaming on such Indian lands, and (3) tribal sovereign immunity bars Plaintiffs’ non‑Compact tort/equitable claims.
- The Ninth Circuit affirms, addressing statutory interpretation of IGRA, Chevron deference, judicial estoppel/waiver, parol evidence and integration, implied covenant, and tribal sovereign immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether land taken into trust under the LRA qualifies as land “taken into trust as part of … a settlement of a land claim” under IGRA §2719(b)(1)(B)(i) | "Land claim" means only claims to title/possession (not injuries); LRA isn’t a settlement of such a claim, so IGRA bar applies | The Nation had land claims for government‑induced flooding (impairment of title/use), the LRA settled those claims, so §2719 exception applies | Parcel 2 qualifies under §2719; IGRA does not bar gaming there |
| Whether the Nation is judicially estopped or waived its right to rely on §2719 based on prior arbitration brief or silence at a 1993 meeting | Nation previously argued (in arbitration) against after‑acquired trust land gaming and was present for a handout saying Arizona wouldn’t be affected — so estoppel/waiver applies | Prior statements were not clearly inconsistent, did not succeed in persuading a court to adopt them, and silence is not an unequivocal waiver; integration clause controls | Judicial estoppel and waiver rejected |
| Whether the Compact implicitly bars gaming in the Phoenix area and whether extrinsic evidence may be used to prove an implicit geographic limitation | Plaintiffs proffer extrinsic evidence showing parties understood Compact would bar Phoenix‑area gaming | Compact’s plain terms permit gaming on Indian Lands consistent with IGRA §2719; integration clause bars extrinsic evidence that varies written terms | Compact does not implicitly bar gaming on Parcel 2; extrinsic evidence rejected under parol‑evidence rules |
| Whether tribal sovereign immunity is abrogated for Plaintiffs’ non‑Compact tort/equitable claims (promissory estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation) | IGRA jurisdiction provision allows suit and thus abrogates immunity for these claims | IGRA’s §2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) abrogates immunity only for suits alleging compact violations; tort/equitable claims are not compact claims | Sovereign immunity bars non‑Compact claims; district court lacked jurisdiction over them |
Key Cases Cited
- Nation v. City of Glendale, 804 F.3d 1292 (9th Cir. 2015) (upholding Secretary’s trust acquisition of Parcel 2 under the LRA)
- Arce v. Douglas, 793 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for judicial review of agency statutory interpretation)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (factors for invoking judicial estoppel)
- Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) (tribal sovereign immunity principles)
- Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 511 (2012) (government‑induced flooding can constitute a taking)
- Bay Mills Indian Cmty. v. Michigan, 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014) (discussion of tribal sovereign immunity and role of Congress)