Carcieri v. Salazar

Last updated
Carcieri v. Salazar
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 3, 2008
Decided February 24, 2009
Full case nameDonald L. Carcieri, Governor of Rhode Island v. Ken L. Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
Docket no. 07-526
Citations555 U.S. 379 ( more )
129 S. Ct. 1058; 172 L. Ed. 2d 791
Case history
PriorCarcieri v. Norton, 290 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D.R.I. 2003); Carcieri v. Norton, 423 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2005); Carcieri v. Kempthorne, 497 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2007)
Holding
The term "now under Federal jurisdiction" referred only to tribes that were federally recognized when the Indian Reorganization Act became law and the federal government could not take land into trust from tribes that were recognized after 1934.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito
ConcurrenceBreyer
Concur/dissentSouter, joined by Ginsburg
DissentStevens
Laws applied
25 U.S.C. §§ 465, 479

Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the federal government could not take land into trust that was acquired by the Narragansett Tribe in the late 20th century, as it was not federally recognized until 1983. While well documented in historic records and surviving as a community, the tribe was largely dispossessed of its lands while under guardianship by the state of Rhode Island before suing in the 20th century.

Contents

The Court ruled that the phrase of tribes "now under Federal jurisdiction" in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 referred only to those tribes that were federally recognized when the act was passed. [1] It ruled that the federal government could not take land into trust for the Narragansett or other tribes that were federally recognized and acquired land after 1934. [2]

Background

Historical tribal relationship

The Narragansett tribe was recorded as having first contact with Europeans in 1524 at Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Following King Philip's War, an armed conflict between several Native American tribes and New England colonists, the Narragansett absorbed several smaller tribes, such as the Niantic. In 1709 it came under the guardianship of the colony of Rhode Island. [3] From 1880 to 1884, Rhode Island attempted to dissolve the tribe, selling off all but 2 acres (8,100 m2) of tribal communal land. [3]

The tribe resisted, requesting repeatedly to be dealt with as a tribe. It filed suit against the state in January 1975, accusing the state of mismanagement of its lands. [4] [5]

In the resulting settlement, Rhode Island placed 1,800 acres (7.3 km2) of land into trust for the tribe, with the condition that, with the exception of hunting and fishing regulations, state law would apply on the land. [6] [7]

Following this, the tribe applied for federal recognition in 1979, which was granted in 1983. At that time, its land was taken into trust by the federal government on the tribe's behalf. [3] The tribe and the state have disagreed on a number of issues, including the collection of taxes on cigarettes sold at a reservation smoke shop and the proposed building of a gaming casino on reservation land. In 1991, the tribe purchased 31 acres (130,000 m2) to be used for housing for elderly tribal members, and petitioned the Secretary of the Interior to take the land into trust as provided for under the Indian Reorganization Act, thus removing it from state jurisdiction.

Action by the Department of the Interior and U.S. District Court

In March 1998, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) notified Rhode Island of its intent to take the 31-acre (130,000 m2) parcel into Federal Trust status. The state appealed this decision to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals, which ruled in favor of the tribe and the BIA. [8]

The state filed suit in U.S. District Court, with the governor of the state, Donald Carcieri, named as plaintiff, and the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, named as defendant. [9] The District Court ruled in favor of the BIA and the tribe. [10]

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Rhode Island appealed the District Court decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. A three-judge panel heard the appeal and affirmed the summary judgment of the District Court. [11] The state requested a rehearing en banc by the full court, which was granted. On rehearing, the full court affirmed the decision of the District Court. [12] The state appealed to the Supreme Court.

Opinion of the US Supreme Court

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, reversing the judgment of the First Circuit. [2]

Thomas determined that the authority of the BIA to take Indian land into a trust status hinged on the phrase "now under Federal jurisdiction" in 25 U.S.C. § 479. Using rules of statutory construction, he determined that this phrase limited the BIA to take Indian Land into trust only if the tribe was federally recognized in 1934 at the time of the law's enactment. This holding excluded the Narrangansett tribe from transferring land to the BIA as trust lands, since the tribe was not federally recognized until 1983. [2]

Concurrence

Justice Stephen Breyer issued a concurring opinion, joined by Justice David Souter. [2] He argued that the majority opinion was correct, but due to the legislative history of the bill, not based on statutory construction. Breyer allowed that even if a tribe was not formally recognized in 1934, they could still be under federal jurisdiction due to an earlier treaty or agreement. [2]

Concurrence in part and dissenting in part

Justice Souter issued an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. [2] Souter argued that the notion of under federal jurisdiction and being federally recognized were not one and the same, even if that is how the BIA and the tribe both understood it. He would have remanded for a determination of the jurisdictional issue. [2]

Dissent

Justice John P. Stevens dissented, [2] arguing that "now" meant "at the time the land was turned over to the BIA," and would have affirmed the lower court's decision. [2]

Subsequent developments

The decision caused an immediate reaction in both the Native American and the legal communities. The American Bar Association newsletter quickly pointed out possible adverse consequences for Indian gaming and tribal sovereignty. Many tribes have achieved federal recognition since 1934, particularly since the late 20th century, as a result of renewed activism and assertion of their cultures. [13] Activists worked to "fix" the decision by Congressional legislative action in order to allow the BIA to continue to take Indian lands into trust. [14] United States Senate bill S.676 was scheduled to be taken up before the end of the 112th Congress to amend language in the Indian Reorganization Act. [15] If enacted into law, the changes would allow the BIA to take lands into trust on behalf of tribes recognized after 1934.

Elected officials in states with existing Indian gaming operations and tribes recognized prior to 1934 oppose such legislation, as they believe it will lead to more gaming activity on newly acquired land by more recently recognized tribes. [16] Additionally, in 2009 17 state attorneys general wrote a legal opinion opposing such legislation. [17]

On June 19, 2014, the United States Senate voted to the pass the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act (S. 1603; 113th Congress), a bill that would reaffirm the status of lands taken into trust by the Department of the Interior (DOI) for the benefit of the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band. [18] [19] The bill explicitly provided that the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band's land trust could not be challenged in court under this Supreme Court decision. [20]

In 2015, the BIA approved the taking of 321 acres of land in Taunton, Massachusetts, into federal trust for the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe. [21] The tribe announced plans to build a gaming casino on that property.

A group of Taunton property owners filed a federal lawsuit in February 2016, contending that the BIA was wrong to designate the casino site as a Native American reservation, because the tribe did not gain federal recognition until 2007. Both sides have said that they will appeal an adverse ruling to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals, and if necessary to the U.S. Supreme Court. [22]

See also

Related Research Articles

Indian Reorganization Act United States Law

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of June 18, 1934, or the Wheeler–Howard Act, was U.S. federal legislation that dealt with the status of American Indians in the United States. It was the centerpiece of what has been often called the "Indian New Deal". The major goal was to reverse the traditional goal of cultural assimilation of Native Americans into American society and to strengthen, encourage and perpetuate the tribes and their historic Native American cultures in the United States.

Narragansett people Native American tribe from Rhode Island, US

The Narragansett people are an Algonquian American Indian tribe from Rhode Island. The tribe was nearly landless for most of the 20th century, but it worked to gain federal recognition and attained it in 1983. It is officially the Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island and is made up of descendants of tribal members who were identified in an 1880 treaty with the state.

Tribal sovereignty in the United States Type of political status of Native Americans

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States. Originally, the U.S. federal government recognized American Indian tribes as independent nations, and came to policy agreements with them via treaties. As the U.S. accelerated its westward expansion, internal political pressure grew for "Indian removal", but the pace of treaty-making grew nevertheless. Then the Civil War forged the U.S. into a more centralized and nationalistic country, fueling a "full bore assault on tribal culture and institutions", and pressure for Native Americans to assimilate. In the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871, without any input from Native Americans, Congress prohibited any future treaties. This move was steadfastly opposed by Native Americans. Currently, the U.S. recognizes tribal nations as "domestic dependent nations" and uses its own legal system to define the relationship between the federal, state, and tribal governments.

The Schaghticoke are a Native American tribe of the Eastern Woodlands who historically consisted of Mahican, Potatuck, Weantinock, Tunxis, Podunk, and their descendants, peoples indigenous to what is now New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. The remnant tribes amalgamated in the area near the Connecticut-New York border after many losses, including the sale of some Schaghticoke and members of neighboring tribes into slavery in the Caribbean in the 1600s.

Oneida Indian Nation Indigenous tribe of North America

The Oneida Indian Nation (OIN) or Oneida Nation is a federally recognized tribe of Oneida people in the United States. The tribe is headquartered in New York, where the tribe originated and held its historic territory long before European colonialism. It is an Iroquoian-speaking people, and one of the Five Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, or Haudenosaunee. Three other federally recognized Oneida tribes operate in locations where they migrated and were removed to during and after the American Revolutionary War: one in Wisconsin in the United States, and two in Ontario, Canada.

<i>Cobell v. Salazar</i>

Cobell v. Salazar is a class-action lawsuit brought by Elouise Cobell (Blackfeet) and other Native American representatives in 1996 against two departments of the United States government: the Department of Interior and the Department of the Treasury for mismanagement of Indian trust funds. It was settled in 2009. The plaintiffs claim that the U.S. government has incorrectly accounted for the income from Indian trust assets, which are legally owned by the Department of the Interior, but held in trust for individual Native Americans. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The original complaint asserted no claims for mismanagement of the trust assets, since such claims could only properly be asserted in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

The Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan is a federally recognized tribe of Potawatomi people in Michigan named for a 19th-century Ojibwe chief. They were formerly known as the Gun Lake Band of Grand River Ottawa Indians, the United Nation of Chippewa, Ottawa and Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan, Inc., and the Gun Lake Tribe or Gun Lake Band. They are headquartered in Bradley, Michigan.

City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197 (2005), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court held that repurchase of traditional tribal lands 200 years later did not restore tribal sovereignty to that land. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion.

United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (2003), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5–4 decision that when the federal government used land or property held in trust for an Indian tribe, it had the duty to maintain that land or property and was liable for any damages for a breach of that duty. In the 1870s, the White Mountain Apache Tribe was placed on a reservation in Arizona. The case involved Fort Apache, a collection of buildings on the reservation which were transferred to the tribe by the United States Congress in 1960.

South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress specifically abrogated treaty rights with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe as to hunting and fishing rights on reservation lands that were acquired for a reservoir.

<i>Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut</i>

Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut (1705–1773) was the first indigenous land rights litigation in history in a common law jurisdiction. James Youngblood Henderson, professor of law, calls the case "the first major legal test of indigenous tenure." Robert Clinton calls it the "first formal litigation of North American Indian rights."

<i>Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton</i> United States court decision recognizing Native American rights

Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370, was a landmark decision regarding aboriginal title in the United States. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the Nonintercourse Act applied to the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot, non-federally-recognized Indian tribes, and established a trust relationship between those tribes and the federal government that the state of Maine could not terminate.

Narragansett land claim

The Narragansett land claim was one of the first litigations of aboriginal title in the United States in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida (1974), or Oneida I, decision. The Narragansett claimed a few thousand acres of land in and around Charlestown, Rhode Island, challenging a variety of early 19th century land transfers as violations of the Nonintercourse Act, suing both the state and private land owners.

Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement Indian Land Claims Settlement

The Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement was an Indian Land Claims Settlement passed by the United States Congress in 1983. The settlement act ended a lawsuit by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe to recover 800 acres of their 1666 reservation in Ledyard, Connecticut. The state sold this property in 1855 without gaining ratification by the Senate. In a federal land claims suit, the Mashantucket Pequot charged that the sale was in violation of the Nonintercourse Act that regulates commerce between Native Americans and non-Indians.

Cedric Cromwell, also known as Qaqeemasq in Wôpanâak, is the Former Tribal Council Chairman of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe of Massachusetts. Elected in 2009 as chairman, Cedric Cromwell was the head of the official elected government for the 2,600-member federally recognized tribe.

United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that lands designated as a reservation in Mississippi are "Indian country" as defined by statute, although the reservation was established nearly a century after Indian removal and related treaties. The court ruled that, under the Major Crimes Act, the State has no jurisdiction to try a Native American for crimes covered by that act that occurred on reservation land.

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe is one of two federally recognized tribes of Wampanoag people in Massachusetts. Recognized in 2007, they are headquartered in Mashpee on Cape Cod. The other tribe is the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) on Martha's Vineyard.

Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Federally recognized tribe of Wampanoag people located in Massachusetts, USA

The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) is a federally recognized tribe of Wampanoag people based in the town of Aquinnah on the southwest tip of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts. The tribe hosts an annual Cranberry Day celebration.

Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act American law

The Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act is an act of Congress that reaffirmed the status of lands taken into trust by the Department of the Interior (DOI) for the benefit of the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians in the state of Michigan.

Ilani Casino Resort Indian casino complex in Clark County, Washington

The ilani Casino Resort is a casino operated by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and located near La Center, Washington. The casino opened on April 24, 2017, after a lengthy legal battle over the tribe's right to establish a reservation to build the casino on.

References

  1. ↑ Wheeler-Howard Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 988
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Donald L. Carcieri, et al. v. Ken L. Salazar, et al., 555 U.S. 379 (2009)
  3. 1 2 3 48 FR 6177
  4. ↑ Narragansett Tribe of Indians v. Southern Rhode Island Land Development Corp., 418F. Supp.798 (D.R.I.1976).
  5. ↑ Narragansett Tribe of Indians v. Murphy , 426F. Supp.132 (D.R.I.1976).
  6. ↑ Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 19F.3d685 (1st Cir.1994).
  7. ↑ Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1716
  8. ↑ Town of Charlestown v. E. Area Dir., Bureau of Indian Affairs, 35 IBIA 93 (2000)
  9. ↑ David Rogers (October 30, 2015). "The new Indian wars in Washington".
  10. ↑ Carcieri v. Norton, 290F. Supp. 2d167 (D.R.I.2003).
  11. ↑ Carcieri v. Norton,423F.3d45(1st Cir.2005).
  12. ↑ Carcieri v. Kempthorne, 497F.3d15 (1st Cir.2007).
  13. ↑ Staudenmaier, Heidi M.; Sheppard, Celene (Spring 2009). "Impact of the Carcieri Decision" (PDF). American Bar Association Newsletter. American Bar Association. Retrieved March 4, 2010.
  14. ↑ Fletcher, Matthew L.M. (February 25, 2009). "Decision's in. 'Now' begins the work to fix Carcieri". Indian Country Today. Archived from the original on January 8, 2010. Retrieved March 4, 2010.
  15. ↑ "Senate schedule for November 26, 2012". Archived from the original on November 29, 2012. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
  16. ↑ Supreme Insult, Carcieri Decision, WampaLeaks blog, September 11, 2010.
  17. ↑ A Communication from the Chief Legal Officers of the following states and territories, April 24, 2009.
  18. ↑ "CBO - S. 1603". Congressional Budget Office. 17 June 2014. Retrieved 20 June 2014.
  19. ↑ Cox, Ramsey (19 June 2014). "Senate passes land trust bill for Pottawatomi Indians". The Hill. Retrieved 20 June 2014.
  20. ↑ "Senate Indian Affairs Committee business meeting and hearing". Indianz.com. 19 May 2014. Archived from the original on 4 July 2014. Retrieved 20 June 2014.
  21. ↑ ashpee Wampanoag Receive 321 Acres: First Land Trust Decision" Archived 2015-09-20 at the Wayback Machine , Indian Country Today, 09-18-2015]
  22. ↑ Murphy, Sean P. (July 12, 2016). "Taunton casino foes to get their day in court". The Boston Globe. Retrieved July 19, 2016.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.