Big Fire Law and Policy Group
Advertise:   ads@blueearthmarketing.com   712.224.5420

Law
Rhode Island set to appeal trust land decision


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)
pwpwd

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)