printer friendly version
Rhode Island set to appeal trust land decision
Friday, September 16, 2005
Officials in Rhode Island indicated they would ask the full 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the Narragansett Tribe's trust land case.
The town of Charlestown and Gov. Donald Carcieri (R) challenged a decision to place 31 acres in trust for the tribe. But a three-judge panel of the court, on Tuesday, rejected every single argument advanced by the state.
By a unanimous vote,
the court said the Bureau of Indian Affairs can acquire land for the tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act. In a 2-1 split, the court said the land will not be subject to the state of Rhode Island.
The 1st Circuit is already rehearing the another tribal-state dispute over the state's raid of the reservation and attempt to impose cigarette taxes on the tribe.
Get the Story:
Tribe celebrates, but state may appeal
(The Providence Journal 9/16)
Username:
indianz@indianz.com, Password:
indianz
1st Circuit Decision:
Carcieri
v. Norton (September 13, 2005)
Relevant Documents:
Carcieri
v. Norton Briefs, Opinions (NARF-NCAI Tribal Supreme Court Project
Relevant Laws:
Rhode
Island Indian Claims Settlement Act (US Code)
Relevant Links:
Narragansett Tribe -
http://www.narragansett-tribe.org
Tribal Supreme Court Project -
http://www.narf.org/sct/index.html
Related Stories:
Trust land challenge rejected by appeals court
(9/14)
Appeals court agrees
to rehear sovereignty case (07/11)
Tribal sovereignty must be respected, court
rules (05/13)
Appeals court sides with
tribe in trust land dispute (02/10)
Court won't rehear challenge to tribal land
base (05/21)
Massachusetts court deals
blow to tribe's sovereignty (12/10)
R.I.
tribe takes smokeshop case to higher court (01/27)
State's raid on tribal land
sparks strong reactions (07/16)
R.I.
to appeal Narragansett land-into-trust case (10/1)
Judge affirms Narragansett Tribe
land-into-trust (9/30)
Court says U.S. can protect tribe's
interests (02/04)
Land still
in limbo after decade-long fight (10/16)
The day the Supreme Court said no
(10/16)
Copyright © 2000-2005 Indianz.Com
