Supreme Court

Carcieri v. Kempthorne (07-526)

Oral argument: Nov. 3, 2008

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (Jul. 20, 2007)

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, INDIAN LAND, INDIAN CASINO, INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT

In 1978, Rhode Island and the Narragansett Indian Tribe settled a dispute concerning land ownership. In exchange for 1,800 acres of land, the Narragansett surrendered other claims to title and agreed that Rhode Island law would apply to the 1,800 acres. This settlement became federal law. The Narragansett later purchased a thirty-one acre parcel from a private developer. At the Narragansetts’ request, the Secretary of the Interior took the land into federal trust under the Indian Reorganization Act (“IRA”), thereby removing it from Rhode Island’s jurisdiction. Concerned over their loss of sovereignty, Rhode Island fought the Secretary’s actions, ultimately leading to the present case between Rhode Island, the Governor, and the town of Charleston, against the Secretary of the Interior and the Regional Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The IRA applies to “tribe[s] now under Federal jurisdiction,” (emphasis added) (25 U.S.C. 479). Interpreting “now” to mean 1934, the time of the IRA’s passage, Rhode Island argues that the IRA would not apply to the Narragansett Indian Tribe, who were recognized later. The Secretary argues that “now” means when the statute is used and therefore the Narragansett do fall within the IRA’s scope. Rhode Island also argues that the settlement with the Narragansett precludes the Secretary from taking the land into federal trust. This case will affect state sovereignty and the power of the IRA. Rhode Island and other states are concerned over the potential loss of local control and jurisdiction over land within their borders. An interpretation of the scope of the IRA could also affect access to the IRA, potentially resulting in a loss of its benefits and protection from state law....

Conclusion

This case will define the extent of the federal government’s authority under the IRA to remove land from state jurisdiction. In so doing, the Court will address the appropriate interpretation of the IRA’s definition of “Indian,” therein settling whether the act applies in full force and effect to all tribes now federally recognized, or to only the tribes that were recognized at the time of the IRA’s passage in 1934. As such, Indian tribes are concerned about how this decision will affect the ease with which they will be able to bring land into federal trust in the future. A ruling restricting the interpretation of “Indian” to tribes recognized in 1934 could also result in depriving some post-1934 tribes of the ability to acquire Tribal sovereignty over their lands and receive federal benefits. The Court will also settle the dispute between the State and the Secretary’s disparate interpretations of Rhode Island’s Settlement Act — whether the agreement gave lands to the Narragansett in exchange for a relinquishment of any future claim to territory in the state, or whether the Act has the effect of actually guaranteeing the State’s sovereignty only within the Settlement Lands. The case draws the interests of over twenty-two states with significant Indian populations who are concerned about a potential loss of jurisdiction and local control over considerable amounts of land within their borders.