Tohono O'Odham Nation v. State of Arizona, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19407

Background

The Tohono O’odham Nation purchased 135 acres (the Replacement Lands) in unincorporated Maricopa County and applied (2009) to the Secretary of the Interior to have parcel(s) taken into trust under the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act (the Act).
The Act authorizes the Secretary to hold purchased replacement land in trust for the Nation, provided it is not outside Maricopa/Pinal/Pima counties or within the corporate limits of any city or town; once requirements are met the Secretary "shall" take the land into trust.
The Secretary determined Parcel 2 satisfied the Act and (after litigation and remand) took Parcel 2 into trust in 2014; the Nation’s remaining trust application was held in abeyance.
Arizona enacted H.B. 2534 (A.R.S. § 9-471.04) allowing cities in large counties to annex territory surrounded or bordered on three sides when the landowner has submitted a federal trust/ownership request; annexation can be approved by a majority (operative if two-thirds).
The Nation sued Arizona and Glendale, alleging H.B. 2534 was preempted by the Act and violated Due Process, Equal Protection, and the state constitutional prohibition on special legislation. The district court found H.B. 2534 preempted as applied and rejected the other challenges; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal preemption: Does the Act preempt H.B. 2534 as an obstacle to Congress's purpose?	H.B. 2534 was enacted to thwart the Act by enabling municipal annexation upon the Nation's trust application, preventing land from qualifying as "not within corporate limits."	The state argues H.B. 2534 regulates municipal annexation, a traditional state power, and the Act does not clearly preempt state annexation authority or freeze the relevant temporal point for "corporate limits."	Held: H.B. 2534 is preempted as applied — it stands as an obstacle to the Act’s purpose because it uses the Nation's application to block mandatory trust acquisitions.
Due Process (federal and state): Is H.B. 2534 arbitrary/unreasonable in violation of due process?	The law arbitrarily strips protections and frustrates vested federal rights, lacking legitimate state interest.	The law is rationally related to legitimate state interests in land use and municipal control; Plaintiff failed to show arbitrariness.	Held: Rejected — Nation did not show H.B. 2534 is clearly arbitrary or without legitimate state purpose; court did not decide this because preemption dispositive.
Equal Protection (federal and state): Does H.B. 2534 irrationally discriminate?	The statute targets tribal trust applicants and treats them differently without sufficient justification.	The statute survives rational-basis review; distinctions are reasonably related to legitimate state objectives.	Held: Rejected — H.B. 2534 survives very lenient rational-basis review.
Arizona special legislation: Does H.B. 2534 violate the state ban on special laws?	H.B. 2534 amounts to special legislation aimed at a particular landowner/activity.	The statute is a general rule for large counties and does not single out an individual or special class beyond legitimate classification.	Held: Rejected — Nation failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the law is special legislation.

Key Cases Cited

Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (discusses presumption against preemption and congressional intent)
Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (defines obstacle preemption standard)
Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (formulation of obstacle preemption)
United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (limits presumption against preemption where federal presence is significant)
Gila River Indian Cmty. v. United States, 729 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2013) (Ninth Circuit’s earlier interpretation remand regarding "corporate limits")
Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for legal and constitutional rulings)