Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation v. DOI
3 F.4th 427
D.C. Cir.2021Background:
- The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act generally allows gaming on trust lands held as of Oct. 17, 1988, but permits later trust acquisitions under the "restored-lands exception" if a restored tribe shows a "significant historical connection" to the land.
- Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians requested an Interior Department Indian Lands Opinion about a 128-acre Vallejo parcel; the Department found Scotts Valley restored but concluded it failed to show the required "significant historical connection."
- Scotts Valley sued the Department under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging that Opinion. Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (a nearby federally recognized tribe) had submitted objections to the Opinion and moved to intervene in the district court to defend the Department.
- Yocha Dehe asserted economic injury (competition with its Cache Creek Casino Resort) and cultural/resource injury (protection of ancestral Patwin sites) if Scotts Valley ultimately developed a casino on the parcel.
- The district court denied intervention, concluding Yocha Dehe lacked Article III standing because any injury from a Scotts Valley casino was speculative and too remote from the challenged agency action; the court also denied Rule 24 intervention and reconsideration.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding Yocha Dehe lacks standing to intervene and therefore did not reach the Rule 24 intervention or permissive-intervention issues.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing to intervene | Yocha Dehe: it currently benefits from the Department's favorable Opinion; adverse judicial reversal would remove that benefit and cause imminent economic/cultural harm | Scotts Valley/DOI: Yocha Dehe is not the direct subject of the Opinion and any harm is speculative and several contingent steps away (trust acquisition, NEPA, compacts, etc.) | No standing: injury too indirect and remote to be "concrete and imminent" |
| Causation / Redressability | Yocha Dehe: a reversed Opinion would enable Scotts Valley to pursue a casino that would harm Yocha Dehe's interests | Scotts Valley/DOI: multiple independent steps between the Opinion and any casino operation break causation and defeat redressability | Insufficient causal link; redress is not assured because other approvals are required |
| Rule 24(a)/(b) intervention as of right / permissive | Yocha Dehe: would be impaired in protecting its economic and cultural interests if excluded | District court/Scotts Valley: even if interests exist, intervention prerequisites (practical impairment, adequacy of representation, timeliness) are not satisfied; permissive intervention not warranted | Court did not reach merits of Rule 24 after finding no standing; affirmed denial of intervention on standing grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Butte Cnty. v. Chaudhuri, 887 F.3d 501 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (explains restored-lands exception and requirement of "significant historical connection")
- Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies v. FEC, 788 F.3d 312 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (intervenor can have standing where it benefits from agency action and loss of that benefit causes imminent injury)
- Fund For Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (agency action that indirectly benefits an applicant can support standing where the affected resource is the subject of the action)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Perciasepe, 714 F.3d 1317 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (standing review is de novo; intervention requires Article III standing)
- Military Toxics Project v. EPA, 146 F.3d 948 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (association or members directly subject to challenged action can establish standing)