Carcieri v. Salazar
Encyclopedia
Carcieri v. Salazar, No. 07-526
(2009), was a recent case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
held that 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.
. Following King Philip's War
, the tribe absorbed several smaller tribes, such as the Niantic
and in 1709 came under the guardianship of Rhode Island. From 1880 to 1884, Rhode Island attempted to dissolve the tribe, selling off all but 2 acres (8,093.7 m²) of tribal land. The tribe resisted, requesting repeatedly to be dealt with as a tribe, culminating in lawsuits in January, 1975. In the resulting settlement, Rhode Island placed 1800 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.
Following this, the tribe requested federal recognition in 1979, which was granted in 1983. The tribe and the state disagree with a number of items, including the collection of taxes on cigarettes sold at a reservation smoke shop and the proposed building of a casino on reservation land. In 1991, the tribe purchased 31 acres (125,452.7 m²) to be used for housing for elderly tribal members, and petitioned the Secretary of the Interior
to take the land into trust under the Indian Reorganization Act
, thus removing it from state jurisdiction.
(BIA) notified Rhode Island of its intent to take the 31 acres (125,452.7 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. The state then filed suit in U.S. District Court
. The District Court ruled in favor of the BIA and the tribe.
. A three judge panel heard the appeal and affirmed the summary judgment of the District Court. The state then requested a rehearing en banc
by the full court, which was granted. On rehearing, the full court affirmed the decision of the District Court.
delivered the opinion of the court.
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 only take Indian Land into trust if the tribe was federally recognized in 1934 at the time of the laws enactment. This holding excluded the Narrangansett tribe from turning land over to the BIA as they were not federally recognized until 1983.
issued a concurring opinion, joined by Justice David Souter
.
Breyer stated that he believed that the majority opinion was correct, but due to the legislative history of the bill, not based on statutory construction. He 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.
.
Souter stated 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. She would have remanded for a determination of the jurisdictional issue.
Stevens believed that "now" meant at the time the land was turned over to the BIA, and would have affirmed the lower court's decision.
newsletter quickly pointed out possible consequences to Indian gaming and tribal sovereignty
. A call has been made to "fix" the decision by Congressional action to allow the BIA to continue to take Indian lands into trust. By the end of 2009, there were two bills introduced in the United States House of Representatives
, H.R. 3742 and H.R. 3697 that would change the language of the statute to allow lands to be taken into trust by the BIA after 1934. A companion United States Senate
bill, S. 1703 was also introduced.
There is strong opposition, however, to any legislative "fix" from elected officials in states with existing Indian gaming operations and tribes recognized prior to 1934. Additionally, 17 state attorney's general have written a legal opinion opposing such legislation. As a result, no legislation has moved forward to alter the Carcieri v. Salazar Decision.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2009), was a recent case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
held that the term "now under Federal jurisdiction" referred only to tribes that were federally recognized when the Indian Reorganization Act
Indian Reorganization Act
The Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934 the Indian New Deal, was U.S. federal legislation that secured certain rights to Native Americans, including Alaska Natives...
became law, and the federal government could not take land into trust from tribes that were recognized after 1934.
Historical tribal relationship
The Narragansett tribe was first contacted by Europeans in 1524 at Narrangansett Bay, Rhode IslandRhode Island
The state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, more commonly referred to as Rhode Island , is a state in the New England region of the United States. It is the smallest U.S. state by area...
. Following King Philip's War
King Philip's War
King Philip's War, sometimes called Metacom's War, Metacomet's War, or Metacom's Rebellion, was an armed conflict between Native American inhabitants of present-day southern New England and English colonists and their Native American allies in 1675–76. The war is named after the main leader of the...
, the tribe absorbed several smaller tribes, such as the Niantic
Niantic
Niantic may refer to:* Niantic , tribe of native AmericansShips*Niantic , relic of San Francisco Gold Rush*USS Niantic Victory, Victory ship later renamed USNS Watertown...
and in 1709 came under the guardianship of Rhode Island. From 1880 to 1884, Rhode Island attempted to dissolve the tribe, selling off all but 2 acres (8,093.7 m²) of tribal land. The tribe resisted, requesting repeatedly to be dealt with as a tribe, culminating in lawsuits in January, 1975. In the resulting settlement, Rhode Island placed 1800 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.
Following this, the tribe requested federal recognition in 1979, which was granted in 1983. The tribe and the state disagree with a number of items, including the collection of taxes on cigarettes sold at a reservation smoke shop and the proposed building of a casino on reservation land. In 1991, the tribe purchased 31 acres (125,452.7 m²) to be used for housing for elderly tribal members, and petitioned the Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of the Interior
The Secretary of the Interior may refer to:* The United States Secretary of the Interior* The Secretario de Gobernación Secretary of the Interior...
to take the land into trust under the Indian Reorganization Act
Indian Reorganization Act
The Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934 the Indian New Deal, was U.S. federal legislation that secured certain rights to Native Americans, including Alaska Natives...
, 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 AffairsBureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is an agency of the federal government of the United States within the US Department of the Interior. It is responsible for the administration and management of of land held in trust by the United States for Native Americans in the United States, Native American...
(BIA) notified Rhode Island of its intent to take the 31 acres (125,452.7 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. The state then filed suit in U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island is the Federal district court whose jurisdiction is the state of Rhode Island. The District Court was created in 1790 when Rhode Island ratified the Constitution...
. The District Court ruled in favor of the BIA and the tribe.
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Rhode Island then appealed the District Court decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* District of Maine* District of Massachusetts...
. A three judge panel heard the appeal and affirmed the summary judgment of the District Court. The state then requested a rehearing en banc
En banc
En banc, in banc, in banco or in bank is a French term used to refer to the hearing of a legal case where all judges of a court will hear the case , rather than a panel of them. It is often used for unusually complex cases or cases considered to be of greater importance...
by the full court, which was granted. On rehearing, the full court affirmed the decision of the District Court.
Opinion of the Court
Reversed and remanded. Justice Clarence ThomasClarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Succeeding Thurgood Marshall, Thomas is the second African American to serve on the Court....
delivered the opinion of the court.
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 only take Indian Land into trust if the tribe was federally recognized in 1934 at the time of the laws enactment. This holding excluded the Narrangansett tribe from turning land over to the BIA as they were not federally recognized until 1983.
Concurrence
Justice Stephen BreyerStephen Breyer
Stephen Gerald Breyer is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, and known for his pragmatic approach to constitutional law, Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court....
issued a concurring opinion, joined by Justice David Souter
David Souter
David Hackett Souter is a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He served from 1990 until his retirement on June 29, 2009. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush to fill the seat vacated by William J...
.
Breyer stated that he believed that the majority opinion was correct, but due to the legislative history of the bill, not based on statutory construction. He 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.
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 GinsburgRuth Bader Ginsburg
Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ginsburg was appointed by President Bill Clinton and took the oath of office on August 10, 1993. She is the second female justice and the first Jewish female justice.She is generally viewed as belonging to...
.
Souter stated 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. She would have remanded for a determination of the jurisdictional issue.
Dissent
Justice John P. Stevens dissented.Stevens believed that "now" meant at the time the land was turned over to the BIA, and would have affirmed the lower court's decision.
Subsequent developments
The decision caused an immediate reaction in both the Native American and the legal community. The American Bar AssociationAmerican Bar Association
The American Bar Association , founded August 21, 1878, is a voluntary bar association of lawyers and law students, which is not specific to any jurisdiction in the United States. The ABA's most important stated activities are the setting of academic standards for law schools, and the formulation...
newsletter quickly pointed out possible consequences to Indian gaming and tribal sovereignty
Tribal sovereignty
Tribal sovereignty in the United States refers to the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States of America. The federal government recognizes tribal nations as "domestic dependent nations" and has established a number of laws attempting to...
. A call has been made to "fix" the decision by Congressional action to allow the BIA to continue to take Indian lands into trust. By the end of 2009, there were two bills introduced in the United States House of Representatives
United States House of Representatives
The United States House of Representatives is one of the two Houses of the United States Congress, the bicameral legislature which also includes the Senate.The composition and powers of the House are established in Article One of the Constitution...
, H.R. 3742 and H.R. 3697 that would change the language of the statute to allow lands to be taken into trust by the BIA after 1934. A companion United States Senate
United States Senate
The United States Senate is the upper house of the bicameral legislature of the United States, and together with the United States House of Representatives comprises the United States Congress. The composition and powers of the Senate are established in Article One of the U.S. Constitution. Each...
bill, S. 1703 was also introduced.
There is strong opposition, however, to any legislative "fix" from elected officials in states with existing Indian gaming operations and tribes recognized prior to 1934. Additionally, 17 state attorney's general have written a legal opinion opposing such legislation. As a result, no legislation has moved forward to alter the Carcieri v. Salazar Decision.