Frank's Landing Indian Community v. National Indian Gaming Commission

918 F.3d 610 (2019)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Frank’s Landing Indian Community v. National Indian Gaming Commission

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
918 F.3d 610 (2019)

Facts

Federal recognition of an Indian tribe means that the United States government formally recognizes a particular Indian group’s tribal status. The United States Secretary of the Interior (the secretary) annually publishes a list of federally recognized tribes. The Frank’s Landing Indian Community (the community) (plaintiff) was not a federally recognized tribe, but the federal Frank’s Landing Act provided that the community was “recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.” In 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which established a framework for regulating class I, class II, and class III gaming on Indian lands. Under IGRA, any Indian tribe that wanted to conduct class II gaming had to submit a proposed ordinance regulating such gaming to the National Indian Gaming Commission (the commission) (defendant) for approval. IGRA defined Indian tribe as any Indian group that was “recognized as eligible by the [s]ecretary for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians” and recognized as having self-governance powers. In 1994, Congress amended the Frank’s Landing Act to provide that the community was “recognized as eligible” for special federal programs and services based on their Indian status and was recognized as self-governing. The amendment also provided that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the community could not engage in IGRA class III gaming. Congress stated that the amendment was not intended to federally recognize the community as a tribe, and the community never otherwise obtained federal recognition. In 2014, the community submitted a class II gaming ordinance to the commission for approval under IGRA. However, the commission declined to review the ordinance based on the determination that the community was not an Indian tribe for IGRA purposes because it was not a federally recognized tribe that appeared on the secretary’s annual list. The community sued the commission and various federal officials in federal court. The district court ruled against the community, and the community appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Christen, 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 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools 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 814,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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