Background & Facts
The Narragansett Indian Tribe was federally recognized in 1983. In the late 1990s, the tribe asked the Secretary of the Interior to take 31 acres of fee land into trust under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA), so the parcel could be developed for tribal housing. The Secretary approved the application.
Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri sued, arguing the Secretary lacked authority. The IRA's land-into-trust provision authorizes the Secretary to acquire land "for the purpose of providing land for Indians," and the statute defines "Indian" to include "members of any recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction." Rhode Island argued that "now" meant at the time the IRA was enacted in 1934 — and the Narragansett were not federally recognized until 1983.
The Supreme Court agreed with Rhode Island.
The Court's Holding
Justice Thomas, writing for a 6-3 majority, held that the word "now" in the IRA's definition of "Indian" unambiguously refers to 1934 — the year the IRA was enacted. The Secretary's land-into-trust authority under § 5 therefore extends only to tribes that were "under federal jurisdiction" in 1934.
Key Holding:
A tribe seeking to have land taken into trust under IRA § 5 must show that it was under federal jurisdiction in 1934. Tribes that were not under federal jurisdiction in 1934 — even if later recognized — cannot use § 5 as the legal basis for trust acquisition unless Congress provides another authority.
Key Language
"We agree with petitioners that the term 'now under Federal jurisdiction' in §479 unambiguously refers to those tribes that were under the federal jurisdiction of the United States when the IRA was enacted in 1934."
"The IRA was a watershed in federal Indian policy... Yet, like all federal statutes, the meaning of the IRA must be derived from its text."
Justice Stevens, dissenting: "The Court today adopts a cramped reading of a statute Congress intended to be 'sweeping' in scope... The result of that interpretation will be the same kind of patchwork system the IRA was meant to replace."
How Carcieri Affects ATN's Mendocino Strategy
Carcieri is a hurdle, not a wall. It says any tribe seeking land into trust under the IRA must prove its 1934 status — but it does not say which tribes pass that test, and it left "under federal jurisdiction" undefined. The Department of the Interior issued the M-37029 Solicitor's Opinion in 2014 (and the M-37055 superseding opinion) explaining that "under federal jurisdiction" is a two-part inquiry: (1) was there federal action evidencing the tribe's status before or in 1934, and (2) did that status remain intact in 1934? Many tribes that lacked formal "recognition" still pass.
What this means for ATN's Mendocino claims:
- 1. The Mendocino Indian Reservation was established in 1856 by federal action — well before 1934. That alone is strong evidence of pre-1934 federal jurisdiction.
- 2. The 1851 unratified treaties with Northern California tribes are documented federal-government dealings predating 1934 by 80+ years. Even unratified, they evidence the federal government's recognition of these communities as treaty-eligible nations.
- 3. BIA agency records, school enrollments, agent reports from the late 19th and early 20th centuries are exactly the kind of evidence the M-Opinion uses to satisfy the second prong.
- 4. Carcieri does not foreclose other paths. Even if the IRA route is contested, alternatives exist: Congress can pass a tribe-specific Carcieri fix (it has done so for several tribes); land can be reaffirmed as already-existing trust land; restored-lands and reservation-restoration mechanisms operate outside § 5.
- 5. For ATN's existing trust acreage, Carcieri is irrelevant — it only applies to new acquisitions. Land already held in trust before Carcieri is undisturbed.
For PL280 specifically: Carcieri is a land-status case, not a jurisdiction case. It does not change PL280 or any tribal-court argument. But it matters for any retrocession or land-back strategy that depends on placing additional acreage into federal trust. ATN's Mendocino factual record — particularly the 1856 reservation establishment — gives it a strong Carcieri showing.
Related Cases
- McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) — Reservation status persists absent express congressional disestablishment
- City of Sherrill v. Oneida (2005) — Why the IRA trust process matters: simply re-buying historic reservation land is not enough
- Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) — Federal trust relationship; the reason "federal jurisdiction" exists as a category
- Argument: The Federal Trust Doctrine