United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria v. Brown
4 Cal. App. 5th 36
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- The Enterprise Rancheria requested the Department of the Interior acquire a Yuba County site in trust for a casino; the Assistant Secretary determined post-1988 trust acquisition would be in the tribe’s best interest and not detrimental to the surrounding community.
- IGRA conditions gaming on post-1988 acquired lands on (among other things) the state governor’s concurrence with the Secretary’s determination and a tribal-state compact for class III gaming.
-Governor Brown concurrently issued the required concurrence and executed a tribal-state compact with the Enterprise Tribe in 2012. - The United Auburn Indian Community (Auburn Tribe), which operates a competing casino, sued seeking writ relief and declaratory relief, alleging (1) the Governor’s concurrence violated separation of powers because concurrence is a legislative act not delegated to him, and (2) the concurrence was a “project” under CEQA requiring environmental review.
- The trial court sustained the Governor’s demurrer without leave to amend; the court held concurrence did not violate separation of powers and was not a CEQA project because the Governor is not a public agency. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Governor’s concurrence with the Secretary’s IGRA §2719 determination is a legislative act barred by separation of powers | Auburn: concurrence sets state policy (land use, tax, participation in IGRA) and is legislative power that was not delegated to the Governor | Governor: concurrence is executive—implementation of existing state gaming policy and is authorized by state law (Const. art. IV §19(f); Gov. Code §12012.5) | Held: concurrence is not clearly legislative; it has executive characteristics and did not materially impair the Legislature’s core lawmaking function, so no separation-of-powers violation. |
| Whether concurrence is ancillary/incidental to the Governor’s compacting authority (i.e., must be legislative delegation) | Auburn: concurrence is separate from compacting power and may occur absent compact; thus not ancillary/incidentally delegated | Governor: concurrence is part of the executive’s implementation of state gaming policy and relates to compacting role | Held: Court did not reach a definitive necessity/ancillary ruling because it found concurrence executive in nature; ancillary issue unnecessary to decide. |
| Whether the Governor could negotiate/execute a compact before land became trust Indian land | Auburn: Governor exceeded authority by negotiating before land was formally taken into trust | Governor: negotiations anticipate gaming that will occur only if land becomes Indian land; Constitution does not restrict timing | Held: Negotiating before trust status is not beyond the Governor’s authority. |
| Whether the Governor’s concurrence was a "project" under CEQA requiring environmental review | Auburn: concurrence was an agency approval/entitlement and thus a CEQA project; Governor is a public agency | Governor: Governor is not a "public agency" under CEQA and concurrence was not a qualifying project | Held: Concurrence is not a CEQA project because the Governor is not a public agency under CEQA; no CEQA review required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. State of California, 25 Cal.4th 287 (Cal. 2001) (separation-of-powers prevents one branch from materially impairing another’s core functions)
- Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. United States, 367 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2004) (governor’s concurrence in IGRA matter is an executive decision applying existing policy)
- Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians v. United States, 110 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 1997) (governor acts under state law when concurring under IGRA; federal law gives effect but not authority)
- Harbor v. Deukmejian, 43 Cal.3d 1078 (Cal. 1987) (partial veto power analysis; executive cannot exercise legislative power absent constitutional authority)
- Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal.4th 989 (Cal. 2010) (distinguishing legislative authority over terms and conditions of employment from executive actions)
- Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Brown, 229 Cal.App.4th 1416 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (Governor is not a "public agency" under CEQA)
- People ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Provines, 34 Cal. 520 (Cal. 1868) (observing that some powers share characteristics of more than one branch)