As many as 60 tribes in California may be affected by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Carcieri v. Salazar, the leader of an opposition group said.

Cheryl Schmidt of Stand Up for California said more than half of the 108 federally-recognized tribes in Cailfornia were not "under federal jurisdiction" in 1934. That means they may not qualify for the land-into-trust process, according to the Supreme Court's decision.

But Schmidt said the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, whose land-into-trust applications have been controversial, isn't one of those. She said the tribe has been identified in acts of Congress as far back as 1881, although the tribe did not appear on the official list of recognized tribes until 1979.

For other tribes, proving they qualify will be tough, a local attorney said. “The burden is going to be on (the tribes) to prove they had these requirements back in 1934. The records in most cases are probably not going to be there," Jim Marino told The Santa Ynez Valley Journal.

Get the Story:
RULING LIMITS TRIBE EXPANSIONS (The Santa Ynez Valley Journal 3/5)
High court gives narrow interpretation to 1934 law (The Wisconsin Law Journal 3/5)

Supreme Court Decision:
Syllabus | Opinion [Thomas] | Concurrence [Breyer] | Dissent [Stevens] | Concurrence/Dissent [Souter]

Supreme Court Documents:
Oral Argument Transcript | Briefs

Related Stories:
NCAI opens winter session in Washington DC (3/4)
Turtle Talk: No easy fix for land-into-trust ruling (3/2)
Rhode Island delegation cool to land-into-trust ruling (3/2)
Fletcher: Now's the time to fix land-into-trust ruling (2/26)
Rep. Rahall to call hearing on land-into-trust ruling (2/26)
Narragansett Tribe to fight land-into-trust ruling (2/26)
Cowlitz Tribe weighs impact of land-into-trust decision (2/26)
Menominee Nation hopes for shift on land-into-trust (2/26)
Gun Lake casino foes review land-into-trust options (2/26)
Supreme Court rules in big land-into-trust case (2/25)
Tribes will ask Congress to 'fix' land-into-trust decision (2/25)
Massachusetts tribe blasts land-into-trust ruling (2/25)
Oneida Nation not worried about land-into-trust (2/25)
Turtle Talk: Implications of land-into-trust ruling (2/25)
Turtle Talk: Thoughts on land-into-trust decision (2/25)
Turtle Talk: Decision brewing in land-into-trust case (01/22)
Land-into-trust case rejected by Supreme Court (1/22)
Land-into-trust case awaits Supreme Court action (1/13)
Turtle Talk: More thoughts on land-into-trust cases (01/13)
Supreme Court rejects two Indian law cases (1/12)
DOJ brief argues 1934 land-into-trust issue again (12/16)
Supreme Court takes on first Indian law case of term (11/04)
Turtle Talk: Poor outlook on land-into-trust case (11/4)
Rhode Island optimistic on land-into-trust case (11/04)
Oregon tribes await outcome of land-into-trust case (11/04)
Appeals court delays casino for Michigan tribe (8/18)
Appeals court judge strikes blows against Indian rights (5/5)
Appeals court backs Gun Lake land-into-trust (4/29)
Appeals court backs Michigan land-into-trust acquisition (7/5)
Appeals court sides with tribe in trust land dispute (1/9)