Casino opponents don't want the Mashpee Wampanoag
Tribe of Massachusetts to join their lawsuit.
The plaintiffs in the case known as Littlefield
v. Department of the Interior say the tribe waited too long to file a motion to join the case. They also say the federal government can adequately represent the tribe's interests.
"The tribe made a tactical decision to stay out of the litigation that they now regret," plaintiff Michelle Littlefield told The Cape Cod Times after her attorneys filed their opposition to the tribe's request to join the lawsuit.
On July 28, Judge William G. Young ruled that the Bureau of Indian Affairs should not have approved the land-into-trust
application for the tribe's First Light Resort and
Casino. He sent the matter back to the agency for further review but the Department of Justice has since filed motion to reconsider.
At issue is whether the tribe was "under federal jurisdiction" in 1934 even though its federal status wasn't formalized until 2007. Government attorneys say Young's decision conflicts with a recent ruling from a federal appeals court in a similar dispute.
The 1934 date is important because the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case known as Carcieri v.
Salazar, said the BIA can only place land in trust for tribes that were "under federal jurisdiction" as of that year.
In the case known as Confederated
Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon v. Jewell, the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals confirmed that the Cowlitz Tribe of Washington was "under federal jurisdiction" in 1934 even though the tribe wasn't formally "recognized" at the time. The decision is the first one of its kind to come from an appellate court in the post-Carcieri era.
Read More on the Story:
Neighbors object to Mashpee tribe's attempt to join lawsuit
(The Cape Cod Times 8/31)
$P 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)
Related Stories:
Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribe hails bid to reconsider casino ruling (08/25)
Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribe in high stakes fight for casino and land (08/22)
Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribe files motion to join casino land dispute (8/16)
Opinion:
Court decisions appear in conflict on tribal gaming rights (8/15)
Indian
law experts debate outcomes in two land-into-trust cases (8/4)
Two
tribes see conflicting rulings in long-running quests for casinos (8/2)
Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribe continues work on casino despite ruling (8/1)
Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribe sees setback in land-into-trust dispute (7/29)
Obama
administration backs Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe casino bid (07/08)
Judge
focuses on Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe casino decision (06/30)
Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribe casino foes lose big source of funding (6/28)
Judge
schedules trial in Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe casino case (6/21)
Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribe not worried about anti-casino lawsuit (05/31)
Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribe sees large turnout for casino job fair (05/16)
Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribe invites all to casino job and vendor fair (5/10)
Mashpee
Wampanaog Tribe overcomes hurdles with casino plan (5/2)
Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribe welcomes rejection of rival casino bid (4/28)
Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribe disputes rival's casino market study (4/26)
Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribe awaits decision on rival casino plan (4/20)
Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribe to host job and vendor fair for casino (04/13)
Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribe moves full steam ahead with casino (4/12)