Decision’s in. ‘Now’ begins work to fix <i>Carcieri</i>

Tools

Decision’s in. ‘Now’ begins work to fix Carcieri

By Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Guest editorial

The Supreme Court’s Feb. 24 decision in Carcieri v. Salazar is a significant defeat for the Narragansett Tribe, and perhaps for hundreds of other Indian tribes not federally recognized in 1934. Carcieri seemingly overturns the Department of Interior’s 70-year-plus practice of taking land into trust for Indian tribes federally recognized after 1934. But while the decision will be disruptive and expensive for Indian tribes affected, it might not be utterly devastating.

Carcieri held that the secretary has no authority to take land into trust for the Narragansetts because they are not an eligible Indian tribe as defined by the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. Only tribes that meet the definition of “Indian tribe” under the IRA are eligible for the fee to trust benefit; in other words, according to the court, tribes that were “under federal jurisdiction” on June 1, 1934. The secretary of the interior did not recognize the Narragansett Tribe as an Indian tribe at that time, and so the court held that the secretary may not take land into trust for the tribe under the IRA. The court’s cramped reading of “now” is the worst kind of judicial formalism, like that recently critiqued by Professor Alex Skibine in the American Indian Law Review.

It is important to parse out exactly which tribes – and which land parcels – are affected by this decision. First, Indian lands already in trust with the secretary of the interior are safe, because the United States already owns the land and is immune from a suit seeking to reverse a fee to trust acquisition. That means tribes operating business enterprises on trust land will be protected by the federal government’s immunity. Second, Indian tribes such as the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians with special statutes authorizing the secretary to take land into trust for them, usually as a result of a congressional recognition act or land claims settlement act, also are exempted.

The Supreme Court’s Feb. 24 decision in Carcieri v. Salazar is a significant defeat for the Narragansett Tribe, and perhaps for hundreds of other Indian tribes not federally recognized in 1934.


Interestingly, the final paragraph in Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion – a major litigation-starter – appears to assume that the Carcieri case is limited to its facts, and therefore only applies to the Narragansett Tribe. The concurring opinions from Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter, as well as Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissent, suggest that numerous other tribes that can demonstrate that they were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934, even if “the Department did not know it at the time,” in Breyer’s words. The concurring and dissenting justices named several tribes that fit into this category, including the Stillaguamish Tribe, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, and the Mole Lake Tribe. In short, according to Justice Breyer, a tribe that could show it was party to a treaty with the United States, the beneficiary of a pre-1934 congressional appropriation, or enrollment with the Indian Office as of 1934. The Narragansett Tribe, according to the court, was under the jurisdiction of Rhode Island in 1934, not the Department of the Interior, and so they are not eligible.

These exceptions to the general Carcieri rule mean that Indian tribes in the twilight of the concurring opinions may be engaged in expensive litigation to prove that they were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934. Such litigation may require the heavy expenditure of funds for expert witnesses, forcing some tribes to undergo the strange and humiliating process of earning a kind of federal recognition all over again. In the coming weeks, the Obama administration should take the lead in defining what “under federal jurisdiction” means to blunt the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Obama administration should take the lead in defining what “under federal jurisdiction” means to blunt the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision.



Regardless, now is the time for Indian country to test the waters in Washington D.C., to see if the Obama administration is serious about change and to press the Democratic-controlled Congress for a Carcieri “fix.” It might not take much legislation, just a quick rewording of the definition of Indian tribe in the IRA to remove the word “now.” The administration and Congress may be sympathetic, given that the Roberts Court seems to go out of its way to punish Indian tribes. A Carcieri “fix” pitched as merely reversing a bad Supreme Court decision would not work a major change on the federal-tribal-state relationship because it would merely be restoring the pre-Carcieri state of affairs that had existed for over seven decades.

For the Narragansett Tribe, this decision is yet another slap in the face to a tribe that has done nothing wrong but what it can to survive. For six justices, the Narragansetts did not pass the test of “federal jurisdiction,” a test that no one could have known in 1934 they would have been required to pass. Nothing could be more arbitrary and capricious.


Matthew L.M. Fletcher is associate professor at the Michigan State University College of Law and director of the Northern Plains Indian Law Center. He is an enrolled citizen of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians.

Saturday, Oct 31 at 6:16 AM WildFireProtest.org wrote ...

Stop the broken Carcieri fixes! Immediately tell your congressman "NO" on HR 3742, HR 3697 and S 1703. Demand a congressional investigation of the BIA cover-up. These bills don't protect Native Americans, they absolve the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian affairs from 200 years of corruption and failure to protect and administer the congress’s treaties made with the Native American’s.

31370317 Inappropriate? Alert Us!

Thursday, Aug 6 at 10:43 AM Wamp1 Mashpee wrote ...

here we go again take take take now take every inch of land we know and you know that is something that can not be replaced or grown so no land no soverign nation to take care of our people not just for gaming and cigerettes but true healing and jobs to live the native dream to prosper in a white mans world to have greater power to take care of our own with out white laws again like the big boat people who came we should of thrown rocks at them and not let them land on the rock

27384219 Inappropriate? Alert Us!

Monday, Jul 20 at 5:23 PM walking eagle wrote ...

i know get ward churchill on the job ,heck he's probably a member of that tribe too!

26444977 Inappropriate? Alert Us!

Monday, Jul 20 at 2:39 PM Richard Dyer wrote ...

I think the Tribes should counter-sue and parse the word "Indian." Obviously we're not Indians just because Columbus made a mistake. But I think all Federal statutes, rles, laws, regs that contain the word "Indian" should be considered nullities because they do not address Idigenous Peoples, or Aborignals.

26428067 Inappropriate? Alert Us!

Monday, Mar 2 at 11:39 PM romayne daniels wrote ...

The parsing of the word "now" in this ruling is a blatant smokescreen for reversing the government's trend to allow tribes to gain lands which were lost to them through various plots and schemes. Since Public Law 93-638 some groups want to quash the progress of tribes' sovereignty through political pressure. This decision is another example of this court's capitulation to the last administration.

17401357 Inappropriate? Alert Us!

Thursday, Feb 26 at 6:25 PM Sally Willett wrote ...

Martin Garbus' "Courting Disaster" and David Getches "Beyond The Law" are must reads on the supreme court's use of Indian law cases as a crucible for implementing Rehnquist's and the Federalist Society's "new federalism" agenda that continues on under the reign of the new uberconservative chief judge and the even more proudly conservative Alito. There are no liberals on the court, only various hues of moderate conservatives. Indian law has a distinct B.C./A.D. it began with Oliphant.

17173347 Inappropriate? Alert Us!

Add a comment

Name:

Comment: 500 Characters Left

By posting a comment, user agrees to all Terms Of Use. Comments may also appear in other website locations and in other Indian Country Today products, without notice and at the discretion of Indian Country Today.

Indian Country Today and its affiliated companies are not responsible for the content of comments posted or for anything arising out of use of the above comments or other interaction among the users. We reserve the right to screen, refuse to post, remove or edit user-generated content at any time and for any or no reason in our absolute and sole discretion without prior notice, although we have no duty to do so or to monitor any Public Forum.

This content requires the latest Adobe Flash Player and a browser with JavaScript enabled. Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.

On Demand