Post by Okwes on Mar 22, 2007 15:01:07 GMT -5
Rhode Island lawsuit casts doubt on Indian land trusts
By Ray Henry, Associated Press Writer | January 9, 2007
BOSTON --Rhode Island authorities disputed Tuesday the federal government's ability to take Indian land into trust as part of a lawsuit that Indian rights advocates say could undermine the legal ownership of tribal land across the country.
The case, argued before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, centers on whether a 31-acre lot in Charlestown, R.I., should be subject to Rhode Island law -- including a prohibition on casino gambling -- or whether the land should be governed by federal and tribal law.
Plaintiffs including Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri have said allowing the Narragansetts to place land into a trust could bolster the tribe's effort to build a casino under federal law. Voters in November overwhelmingly rejected an amendment to the state constitution allowing the Narragansetts to operate a casino in West Warwick.
"This will open up the potential of Indian country not only on these 31 acres but anywhere in Rhode Island," said attorney Joseph Larisa Jr., who represents Charlestown's town government, which opposes the transfer.
Tribal lawyers say the case is part of a widespread attack on the U.S. Department of the Interior's ability to hold Indian land in trust for tribes, a step state governments often fight because Indian lands are generally exempt from state law.
The case began in 1991, when a Narragansett housing authority purchased the 31-acre parcel, which is separated by a road from 1,800 acres granted to the tribe years earlier. While attempting to build a housing complex, the Narragansetts asked the federal government to take the land into trust.
Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas, who attended the hearing, said his tribe has no plans to build a casino on the lot.
"Our tribe needs housing, and they need it desperately," he said.
According to lawyers for the state, federal authorities can't take land into trust for tribes that weren't organized or federally recognized before the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act took effect -- requirements that they say exclude the Narragansetts. The tribe was recognized in 1983.
Congress enacted the 1934 law to help tribes that lost property during an earlier period of forced assimilation, when tribes were broken up and their lands sold, said Claire Richards, an attorney for Carcieri. The Narragansetts are not one of those tribes, she said.
Richard Guest, an attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, said this week that Congress never intended to keep Indian tribes recognized after 1934 from placing their lands in federal trust. He said newer laws make clear that federal agencies can't discriminate against tribes based on how or when they were recognized.
A U.S. District Court and an earlier appeals panel rejected the state's argument.
"In Congress' view, a tribe is a tribe is a tribe," Guest said. "It's a dangerous precedent for us to start to treat tribes differently when Congress says federal agencies are precluded from doing that."
If the state prevails, no one is certain how much tribal land could be cast into legal limbo. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has never provided lawyers for either side an accounting of the Indian lands it holds in trust. Neal said lawyers for the state aren't sure such a list even exists. A bureau spokesman said he couldn't immediately comment on the inventory.
Allowing the tribe to place land into trust could renew Rhode Island's casino gambling debate. The tribe agreed as part of a 1978 settlement that state law, including a ban on casino gambling, applies to Narragansett lands.
That agreement doesn't explicitly address whether additional land acquired by the Narragansetts could be placed into federal trust.
A federal law sponsored by the late Sen. John Chafee later exempted the original settlement lands from the federal Indian Gaming Act, which has allowed two Connecticut tribes to build profitable casinos just across the border.
Larisa said this week that it's unclear whether tribal land held in federal trust would be subject to the same gambling ban.
"That's a door we want to remain completely shut," he said.
The judges on the appeals court did not say when they would rule on the case.
By Ray Henry, Associated Press Writer | January 9, 2007
BOSTON --Rhode Island authorities disputed Tuesday the federal government's ability to take Indian land into trust as part of a lawsuit that Indian rights advocates say could undermine the legal ownership of tribal land across the country.
The case, argued before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, centers on whether a 31-acre lot in Charlestown, R.I., should be subject to Rhode Island law -- including a prohibition on casino gambling -- or whether the land should be governed by federal and tribal law.
Plaintiffs including Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri have said allowing the Narragansetts to place land into a trust could bolster the tribe's effort to build a casino under federal law. Voters in November overwhelmingly rejected an amendment to the state constitution allowing the Narragansetts to operate a casino in West Warwick.
"This will open up the potential of Indian country not only on these 31 acres but anywhere in Rhode Island," said attorney Joseph Larisa Jr., who represents Charlestown's town government, which opposes the transfer.
Tribal lawyers say the case is part of a widespread attack on the U.S. Department of the Interior's ability to hold Indian land in trust for tribes, a step state governments often fight because Indian lands are generally exempt from state law.
The case began in 1991, when a Narragansett housing authority purchased the 31-acre parcel, which is separated by a road from 1,800 acres granted to the tribe years earlier. While attempting to build a housing complex, the Narragansetts asked the federal government to take the land into trust.
Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas, who attended the hearing, said his tribe has no plans to build a casino on the lot.
"Our tribe needs housing, and they need it desperately," he said.
According to lawyers for the state, federal authorities can't take land into trust for tribes that weren't organized or federally recognized before the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act took effect -- requirements that they say exclude the Narragansetts. The tribe was recognized in 1983.
Congress enacted the 1934 law to help tribes that lost property during an earlier period of forced assimilation, when tribes were broken up and their lands sold, said Claire Richards, an attorney for Carcieri. The Narragansetts are not one of those tribes, she said.
Richard Guest, an attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, said this week that Congress never intended to keep Indian tribes recognized after 1934 from placing their lands in federal trust. He said newer laws make clear that federal agencies can't discriminate against tribes based on how or when they were recognized.
A U.S. District Court and an earlier appeals panel rejected the state's argument.
"In Congress' view, a tribe is a tribe is a tribe," Guest said. "It's a dangerous precedent for us to start to treat tribes differently when Congress says federal agencies are precluded from doing that."
If the state prevails, no one is certain how much tribal land could be cast into legal limbo. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has never provided lawyers for either side an accounting of the Indian lands it holds in trust. Neal said lawyers for the state aren't sure such a list even exists. A bureau spokesman said he couldn't immediately comment on the inventory.
Allowing the tribe to place land into trust could renew Rhode Island's casino gambling debate. The tribe agreed as part of a 1978 settlement that state law, including a ban on casino gambling, applies to Narragansett lands.
That agreement doesn't explicitly address whether additional land acquired by the Narragansetts could be placed into federal trust.
A federal law sponsored by the late Sen. John Chafee later exempted the original settlement lands from the federal Indian Gaming Act, which has allowed two Connecticut tribes to build profitable casinos just across the border.
Larisa said this week that it's unclear whether tribal land held in federal trust would be subject to the same gambling ban.
"That's a door we want to remain completely shut," he said.
The judges on the appeals court did not say when they would rule on the case.