Carcieri v. Salazar
2009 U.S. LEXIS 1633, 172 L. Ed. 2d 791, 555 U.S. 379 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The phrase "now under Federal jurisdiction" in §479 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA) refers exclusively to tribes that were under federal jurisdiction at the time of the Act's enactment. Consequently, the Secretary of the Interior's authority under §465 of the IRA to take land into trust for an Indian tribe is limited to those tribes that met this 1934 jurisdictional requirement.
Facts:
- The Narragansett Indian Tribe, indigenous to the area of modern-day Rhode Island, was placed under the guardianship of the Colony of Rhode Island in 1709.
- In 1880, the State of Rhode Island induced the Narragansett Tribe to relinquish its tribal authority and sell all but two acres of its reservation land.
- Between 1927 and 1937, federal officials repeatedly informed the Tribe that it was under the jurisdiction of the New England States, not the Federal Government, and denied requests for assistance.
- In 1978, the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act was passed, through which the Tribe received title to 1,800 acres of land in Charlestown, Rhode Island.
- The Bureau of Indian Affairs formally granted federal recognition to the Narragansett Tribe in 1983.
- In 1991, the Tribe's housing authority purchased a 31-acre parcel of land in Charlestown adjacent to its settlement lands.
- The Tribe requested that the Secretary of the Interior take this 31-acre parcel into trust to facilitate the construction of tribal housing free from local regulations.
- In 1998, the Secretary of the Interior notified the State of Rhode Island and the town of Charlestown of his decision to accept the 31-acre parcel into trust for the Tribe.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Rhode Island, its Governor, and the town of Charlestown appealed the Secretary of the Interior's decision to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA).
- The IBIA affirmed the Secretary's decision.
- Petitioners filed a suit challenging the IBIA's decision in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Interior.
- The State of Rhode Island et al., as appellants, appealed the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed the judgment of the District Court in favor of the Secretary of the Interior, the appellee.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the First Circuit's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Indian Reorganization Act's definition of "Indian," which includes members of any "recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction," limit the Secretary of the Interior's authority to take land into trust only for tribes that were under federal jurisdiction when the Act was passed in 1934?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes. The Indian Reorganization Act's definition of "Indian" limits the Secretary of the Interior's authority to take land into trust to only those tribes that were under federal jurisdiction in 1934. The plain meaning of the word "now" at the time of the IRA's enactment referred to that specific point in time. This interpretation is reinforced by statutory context, as other sections of the IRA use the phrase "now or hereafter," demonstrating that Congress knew how to encompass future events when it so intended. Furthermore, contemporaneous interpretations by the Executive Branch, particularly by John Collier, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and a principal author of the Act, confirm that the provision was understood to apply to tribes under federal jurisdiction as of the date of the Act.
Concurring - Justice Breyer
Yes. The term "now" means 1934, limiting the Secretary's authority. Although the statutory language itself is potentially ambiguous, the legislative history makes clear that Congress intended the 1934 limitation. This holding, however, may be less restrictive than it appears, as a tribe could have been "under Federal jurisdiction" in 1934 even if it was not formally recognized by the government until much later, so long as the basis for the later recognition established a pre-existing jurisdictional relationship. In this case, the Narragansett Tribe did not argue that it met this standard.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Souter
Yes, but the case should be remanded. While the majority's interpretation that "now" means 1934 is correct, the Court should not have issued a straight reversal. Throughout the litigation, all parties, including the Secretary, conflated the concepts of federal "recognition" and being "under Federal jurisdiction." Because the distinct question of whether the Narragansett Tribe was under federal jurisdiction in 1934 (even if unrecognized at the time) was never properly addressed, the case should be remanded to allow the Tribe and the Secretary an opportunity to make that argument.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No. The Act's temporal limitation on the definition of an individual "Indian" does not apply to the Secretary's separate authority to take land into trust for an "Indian tribe." Section 465 of the IRA explicitly authorizes the Secretary to take land in trust for an "Indian tribe or individual Indian." The definition of "tribe" in §479 does not contain the word "now." Therefore, as long as a group is a federally recognized Indian tribe, like the Narragansett Tribe since 1983, the Secretary has the authority to take land into trust for it, regardless of its status in 1934.
Analysis:
The Court's decision in Carcieri significantly restricted the land-into-trust authority of the Secretary of the Interior, a cornerstone of federal Indian policy for over 70 years. By creating a temporal distinction based on a tribe's jurisdictional status in 1934, the ruling effectively established two classes of federally recognized tribes: those eligible for trust acquisitions under the IRA and those recognized after 1934 who are not. This has created substantial legal uncertainty and litigation, as the Court did not define what constitutes being "under federal jurisdiction." The decision has impeded economic development and land restoration for many tribes and has spurred repeated legislative efforts (known as a "Carcieri fix") to amend the IRA to apply to all federally recognized tribes.
Unlock the full brief for Carcieri v. Salazar