City of Roseville v. Norton

348 F.3d 1020 (2003)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

City of Roseville v. Norton

United States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
348 F.3d 1020 (2003)

Facts

Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), gaming was generally prohibited on Indian land acquired after October 17, 1988, and located outside of the tribe’s previous reservation. The first reservation of the Auburn Indian Band (tribe), known as the Rancheria, was redistributed after Congress withdrew the tribe’s federal recognition. In 1994, Congress enacted the Auburn Indian Restoration Act (AIRA), which restored the tribe’s federal recognition and authorized the secretary of the interior (secretary) to accept lands into trust. In 2000, the tribe applied for 49 acres to be used for a gaming site close to the cities of Roseville and Rocklin (the cities) (plaintiff). The new land was not located on the tribe’s former Rancheria site, and the proposed gaming activity was not conducted on its former reservation. The cities opposed the application, arguing that under 25 U.S.C. § 2719, in order to conduct gaming on land acquired after October 17, 1988, the secretary must make a determination that the proposed gaming activity “would not be detrimental to the surrounding communities.” The tribe argued the land was exempted from this finding because the land fell under the exception applicable to restoration of lands for a tribe that was restored to federal recognition. The cities argued that the 49 acres did not fall under the restoration-of-lands exception because the land was not part of the tribe’s former reservation, and that restoration lands must be identical or nearly identical to the tribe’s previous land. According to the cities, the word “restoration” was limited to mean “bringing back to an original state.” The tribe argued for an expansive definition of restoration that included the concept of restitution for past wrongs and contemplated new lands serving to restore former lands that were no longer available. The cities filed suit against the secretary, alleging that the secretary violated IGRA by failing to make a finding of no community detriment. The district court dismissed the cities’ action by finding that the restoration-of-lands exception applied to the 49 acres. The cities appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rogers, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 736,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership