In a case that demonstrates the ramifications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Carcieri” decision of 2009, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will rehear the Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California.
The tribe sued the state of California, claiming that it negotiated a Class III gaming compact in bad faith. The state responded that the tribe, which wasn’t under federal jurisdiction in 1934, could not put land into trust, according to the Carcieri v. Salazar decision.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit sided with the state on January 21. The tribe requested and was granted an “en banc” hearing by the entire 9th Circuit’s 11 judges. The hearing is scheduled for September 17.
Tribes across the U.S. are watching this case, and for the most part rooting for the tribe. They are concerned that this ruling, if upheld, could set a precedent that could affect many tribes, almost half of which were recognized after 1934.
A friend of the court brief filed by several Indian organizations, such as the National Congress of American Indians, says the ruling “threatens tribal jurisdiction over millions of acres of land acquired in trust.”
The National Indian Gaming Association called the ruling “clearly a blow to the tribe and to all of Indian country,” adding, “It not only sets negative precedent with regard to the application of IGRA’s good faith negotiation requirement, but it also will serve to encourage litigants seeking to undermine tribal sovereignty and/or the status of trust lands to assert Carcieri-related claims in all lawsuits involving federal laws or federal actions relating to Indian lands.”
The Department of Justice is also concerned that the ruling could open numerous tribes to lawsuits that will litigate trust acquisitions many decades old.
