indianz.com your internet resource indianz.com on facebook indianz.com on twitter indianz.com on Google+
ph: 202 630 8439
Indian Law Online Master Degree
Advertise on Indianz.Com
Home > News > Headlines
Print   Subscribe
Supreme Court takes on first Indian law case of term
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Filed Under: Law | Trust

The U.S. Supreme Court heard its first Indian law case of the term on Monday, taking on a land-into-trust dispute that could affect tribes nationwide.

In Carcieri v. Kempthorne, the state of Rhode Island is trying to stop the Narragansett Tribe from benefiting from the land-into-trust process. At issue are 31 acres the tribe intends to use for a housing project.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs agreed to acquire the land and its decision was upheld by a federal judge and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. But the victories could be overturned by a high court that seemed receptive to the state's side of the case.

The main point of contention during yesterday's one-hour hearing was whether the land-into-trust provisions of the Indian Reorganization Act apply to tribes that weren't federally recognized when the law was passed in 1934. The Narragansetts gained status in 1983.

Theodore B. Olson, a former Bush administration attorney, said the use of the word "now" showed Congress intended the land-into-trust process to benefit tribes that were "now under federal jurisdiction" when the law was passed. He argued that the provisions were meant only for tribes that were victims of allotment.

"My reference to the statute and the use of the word 'now' in this statute is very, very clear," Olson, who handled Supreme Court litigation for the administration, told the court. "The legislation -- the statute refers to legislation 'now pending.' That had to mean 1934."

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who wrote a negative decision in the court's last Indian law case, appeared to agree that the word "now" carried meaning. That made it harder for Deanne Maynard, an assistant to the Solicitor General at the Department of Justice, to defend the government's reading of the law.

"So you're saying the only way that makes sense is to read it as if [the word 'now'] weren't there," Roberts said.

The hearing seemed to be going favorably for the state, so Olson didn't even bring up a second issue -- whether Congress barred the Narragansetts from following the land-into-trust process by settling the tribe's land claim. Maynard tried to go into this argument but was only able to get in a few sentences before Roberts steered the debate back to the "now" point.

Roberts appeared concerned that using 1934 as a cut-off date would inadvertently hurt tribes who might otherwise have been recognized at the time. Olson argued -- and the chief justice seemed to agree -- that tribes with treaties or some sort of proven historical relationship with the government would end up being covered by the land-into-trust provisions of the IRA.

Olson also cited more than a dozen other land claim settlement acts and federal recognition acts that contained language to ensure the affected tribes could participate in the land-into-trust process. He told the court the Narragansetts didn't fall into that category.

Maynard pointed out that the government didn't have a list of recognized tribes in 1934. She described the IRA as a "forward-looking act" that would benefit all tribes that want to create or restore their land base, a view that Roberts questioned.

"So, if you weren't recognized in 1934, you were not penalized by the allotment policy, so you didn't need the benefit," Roberts said. "I think that backward-looking perspective seems to make perfect sense."

A negative decision could put dozens of tribes that weren't recognized in 1934 in danger. In order to address the "now under federal jurisdiction" issue, the government might have to change the land-into-trust process to determine whether a recently recognized tribe can benefit from the IRA.

Congress could tame another route and amend the Narragansett Tribe's settlement act or the IRA itself to resolve the dispute. But those efforts are likely to be met with significant opposition from Rhode Island and other states that have long argued that taking land off the tax rolls and placing it in trust infringes on their rights.

The Supreme Court is currently accepting briefs in two other Indian law cases that will be heard this term. US v. Navajo Nation involves a contentious breach of trust dispute that the justices heard during their 2002-2003 term.

Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs raises issues about the political status of Native Hawaiians. In the 1999-2000 term, Roberts argued a Native Hawaiian case before the court but lost to Olson, who represented a non-Native rancher.

The inclusion of the three cases on the dock has the Native American Rights Fund, whose attorneys help run the Tribal Supreme Court Project, suggesting that the current term "may prove to be another difficult period for Indian Country."

Supreme Court Documents:
Oral Argument Transcript | Briefs

Related Stories:
Turtle Talk: Poor outlook on land-into-trust case (11/4)
Rhode Island optimistic on land-into-trust case (11/4)
Oregon tribes await outcome of land-into-trust case (11/4)
Supreme Court to hear land-into-trust case (11/3)
Still no agreement on land-into-trust hearing (10/31)
Rhode Island governor angry over hearing impasse (10/30)
SCOTUSBlog: Jockeying for land-into-trust hearing (10/30)
Fight over land-into-trust hearing continues (10/28)
'Childish' fight over land-into-trust arguments (10/24)
Town backs lawyer to argue land-into-trust case (10/17)
Column: Land-into-trust case an important one (10/15)
Town weighs land eyed by Narragansett Tribe (10/15)
Prosecutors seek alibis in Aquash murder case (10/15)
Land-into-trust argument fight gets even more nasty (10/9)
Attorneys at 'impasse' for land-into-trust arguments (10/8)
Indian law cases on Supreme Court's new docket (10/07)
Narragansett Tribe won't argue at Supreme Court (10/6)
Court takes land-into-trust case (2/26)
U.S. Supreme Court accepts land-into-trust case (2/25)
High court weighs Narragansett land-into-trust (2/22)
Groups file brief in pending land-into-trust case (02/06)
Supreme Court brief backs land-into-trust (1/29)



Copyright © Indianz.Com
More headlines...
Stay Connected:

Local Links:
Federal Register | Indian Gaming | Jobs & Notices | In The Hoop | Message Board
Latest News:
Native Sun News: Chair of Lower Brule Sioux Tribe blasts report (1/27)
Native Sun News: Lummi Nation eyes halt to coal export project (1/27)
House Natural Resources Committee set to hold first meeting (1/27)
First-ever conference to focus on marijuana in Indian Country (1/27)
Fort Peck Tribes moving towards full legalization of marijuana (1/27)
8th Circuit rules against Indian inmate in religious rights case (1/27)
Jennifer Denetdale: Film glosses over violence in border towns (1/27)
Isadore Boni: An Apache AIDS survivor completes first marathon (1/27)
Osage Nation expects to see $7.4M in Cobell consolidation offers (1/27)
The Atlantic: Native people wary of DNA tests and genetic studies (1/27)
Morongo Band to debut first tribally-owned Taco Bell next week (1/27)
County files appeal over Chumash Tribe land-into-trust decision (1/27)
City leaders to work closely with Shakopee Tribe on road project (1/27)
Miccosukee Tribe wins decision in dispute over fees paid to court (1/27)
Senate Democrats delay vote on Keystone XL Pipeline measure (1/27)
Editorial: Wildlife refuge in Alaska deserves stronger protections (1/27)
BIA questions provision in compact for some New Mexico tribes (1/27)
Seminole Tribe still interested in opening casino in Atlantic City (1/27)
Ho-Chunk Nation's gaming compact authorizes another facility (1/27)
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes name executive for gaming operation (1/27)
Editorial: Presidential politics derailed off-reservation casino bid (1/27)
Native Sun News: North Dakota takes on impacts of energy boom (1/26)
Native Sun News: Oglala Sioux man calls on US to honor its word (1/26)
GOP leader outlines agenda for Senate Indian Affairs Committee (1/26)
Witness list for Senate Indian Affairs Committee's first hearing (1/26)
Supreme Court orders another decision in Indian inmates' case (1/26)
Brandon Ecoffey: Major issues ignored in State of Indian Nations (1/26)
Steven Newcomb: Supreme Court decision influenced by religion (1/26)
Mateo Romero: Era of white American male rule coming to an end (1/26)
Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation mourns passing of Gary Mitchell (1/26)
Officer accused of using Taser on 2 boys in Alaska Native village (1/26)
Navajo Nation Council delegate does double duty as metalhead (1/26)
Editorial: Alaska tribe makes tough decision to banish bad actors (1/26)
Opinion: Wealthy tribes shouldn't follow land-into-trust process (1/26)
Obama to seek stronger protections for wildlife refuge in Alaska (1/26)
Ho-Chunk Nation remains hopeful on off-reservation casino bid (1/26)
Chukchansi Tribe comes together in hopes of reopening casino (1/26)
Bois Forte Band reports six percent drop in revenues at casino (1/26)
Washington tribes can add more machines with new casino deal (1/26)
Editorial: Battle against Poarch Creek casinos is a waste of time (1/26)
Native Sun News: Montana basketball legend gives back to youth (1/23)
Mark Trahant: Building the new digital economy in Indian Country (1/23)
James Giago Davies: Washington team insults the first Americans (1/23)
Gyasi Ross: Indian Country can't get enough of Seattle Seahawks (1/23)
more headlines...

Home | Arts & Entertainment | Business | Canada | Cobell Lawsuit | Education | Environment | Federal Recognition | Federal Register | Forum | Health | Humor | Indian Gaming | Indian Trust | Jack Abramoff Scandal | Jobs & Notices | Law | National | News | Opinion | Politics | Sports | Technology | World

Indianz.Com Terms of Service | Indianz.Com Privacy Policy
About Indianz.Com | Advertise on Indianz.Com

Indianz.Com is a product of Noble Savage Media, LLC and Ho-Chunk, Inc.