Tohono O'odham Nation v. Glendale, City of
2:11-cv-00279
D. Ariz.Jun 30, 2011Background
- Tohono O’odham Nation owns 135 acres of land in an unincorporated county island surrounded by Glendale, planning a casino contingent on federal trust status.
- Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act (Gila Bend Act) requires land to be taken into trust not within a city’s corporate limits, upon a tribe’s request and satisfaction of statutory requirements.
- In 2009–2010, DOI concluded Parcel 2 (of Nation’s land) met trust requirements and was not within Glendale’s corporate limits; Parcel 1’s trust status was held in abeyance pending state court outcomes.
- Arizona enacted HB 2534 in 2011 to allow rapid annexation of land surrounded by a city where the owner has asked the federal government to take ownership or hold land in trust, purportedly to preserve municipal control.
- Nation filed suit seeking declaration HB 2534 invalid as applied, and an injunction preventing Glendale from annexing Nation land; court granted partial summary judgment finding preemption by the Gila Bend Act.
- Court held HB 2534 is preempted as applied, and also ruled against Nation on due process, equal protection, and special-legislation theories, granting judgment to Nation on the preemption claim only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does HB 2534 preempt the Gila Bend Act as applied? | O’odham: HB 2534 obstructs Congress’s trust mandate. | Glendale: HB 2534 not yet applied to the Nation’s land; concerns are premature. | HB 2534 preempts the Gila Bend Act as applied. |
| Is the Nation’s as-applied challenge to HB 2534 justiciable? | Nation: there is a real threat Glendale will annex under HB 2534. | Glendale: no concrete action yet; no justiciable controversy. | Yes; controversy ripe for declaratory relief. |
| Does HB 2534 violate due process under rational-basis review? | Nation: action would arbitrarily interfere with federal rights. | HB 2534 rationally related to legitimate state interests in annexation control. | HB 2534 passes rational-basis review; no due process violation. |
| Does HB 2534 violate equal protection by targeting certain counties/cities? | Nation: classifications are arbitrary and discriminatory. | Classifications rationally relate to urban-development concerns. | HB 2534 survives rational-basis equal protection review. |
| Is HB 2534 “special legislation” under Arizona Const. art. IV, pt. 2, § 19(20)? | Nation: law targets a narrow class and is not generally applicable. | Legislation applies to counties meeting population criterion and is rational and flexible. | HB 2534 does not constitute special legislation; statute survives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249 (1933) (declaratory-judgment and justiciability standards)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 546 U.S. 118 (2007) (economic-entity standing and preemption context)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009) (presumption against preemption in field generally)
- Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (Supremacy-Clause-based preemption discussion)
- Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) (preemption and conflicts with state law)
- Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (1947) (clear and manifest purpose standard for preemption)
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) (obstacle preemption framework)
- Green v. City of Tucson, 340 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2003) (intergovernmental conflicts and municipal control)
- Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County, 141 P.3d 416 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006) (flexible population-based classifications in special-legislation context)
- Long v. Napolitano, 53 P.3d 172 (Ariz. 2002) (rational basis and special-legislation standards)