City of Roseville v. Norton
United States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
348 F.3d 1020 (2003)
- Written by Alex Hall, JD
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…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.