Litigation | Openings & Closings

Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe files motion to join casino land dispute

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Cedric Cromwell, the chairman of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, speaks at a casino job and vendor fair in Taunton, Massachusetts, on May 14, 2016. Photo from Facebook

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe of Massachusetts is seeking to intervene in a lawsuit filed by casino opponents.

The tribe was not named as a defendant in the case known as Littlefield v. Department of the Interior. But now that a federal judge's decision has placed a cloud on the First Light Resort and Casino, the tribe wants to be sure its rights and interests are protected and represented in court.

"Besides the tribe’s strong spiritual and cultural ties to the land, the tribe has a very substantial financial interest at stake, both with respect to existing future debt as well as potential future revenues that will will translate to economic development for an entire tribal community," Chairman Cedric Cromwell said in a declaration submitted on Monday. "If the land is taken out of trust, the tribe will face a substantial financial loss, which represents a severe and debilitating threat to the economic development and overall prosperity of the tribe."

It is common for tribes to intervene in land-into-trust lawsuits. In the two most recent significant cases, the Cowlitz Tribe of Washington and the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan joined cases that were filed by casino opponents. In both instances, the tribes and the federal government prevailed.

The Mashpee case, like the others, arose out of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Carcieri v. Salazar. Casino opponents say the BIA should not have approved the land-into-trust application because the tribe was not "under federal jurisdiction" in 1934.

The Mashpees didn't gain former federal status until 2007, long after that date. But the BIA concluded that the tribe could follow the land-into-trust process because its members were living on a "reservation" in 1934.

Judge William G. Young, however, didn't accept that assessment. He said the BIA's approval went against the Carcieri decision even though it was based on a provision of the Indian Reorganization Act that wasn't at issue in the Supreme Court case.

Despite the negative ruling, Young left the next step in the matter up to the federal government.

The tribe broke ground on the casino in April with plans to open the first phase in the summer of 2017. Construction work has been put on hold pending further clarification of the legal issues.

Turtle Talk has posted documents from the case, Littlefield v. Department of the Interior.

Read More on the Story:
Mashpee tribe seeks involvement in land trust suit (The Cape Cod Times 8/16)
Mashpee Wampanoag tribe wants to be part of lawsuit over Taunton casino (The Boston Globe 8/16)

Court Decisions:
District Court of Massachusetts: Littlefield v. Department of the Interior (July 28, 2016)
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals: Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon v. Jewell (July 29, 2016)

Supreme Court Decision in Carcieri v. Salazar:
Syllabus | Opinion [Thomas] | Concurrence [Breyer] | Dissent [Stevens] | Concurrence/Dissent [Souter]

Department of the Interior Solicitor Opinion:
M-37029: The Meaning of "Under Federal Jurisdiction" for Purposes of the Indian Reorganization Act (March 12, 2014)