Whether the Secretary of Interior has authority under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) to acquire land in trust for tribes not recognized in 1934

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Secretary of Interior has authority under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) to acquire land in trust for tribes that were recognized in 1934. Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009). The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) has authority under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), “to regulate gaming on Indian lands, and nowhere else.” Mich. v. Bay Mills, 572 U.S. 782, 795 (2014). Recognition pursuant to 25 CFR Part 83, is a “prerequisite” for a tribe to receive “the protection, services and benefits of the federal government” including IGRA and IRA benefits. Carcieri, 555 U.S. at 385. Plaintiffs challenged two federal approvals for the Tone Band of Miwok Indians, namely: (1) the 2012 approval of an IRA trust transfer by the Department of Interior (DOI) even though the Ione Band was not federally recognized in 1934 and (2) the 2018 approval of a gaming ordinance by the NIGC even though the Ione Band does not have “Indian lands” as defined by IGRA. Nor has the Ione Band been acknowledged as a tribe per 25 CFR Part 83. The Ninth Circuit reviewed defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (FRCP 12(c)), de novo, and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint — in a four page unpublished memorandum without leave to amend and without a hearing. The panel did not address the serious factual allegations in the complaint. Instead, it dismissed the complaint based on Ninth Circuit “precedent” that is contrary to Carcieri and that was superseded by a subsequent interpretation by the DOI. See Nat? Cable Telecom. v. Brand X Internet, 545 U.S. 967, 982-83 (2005) “Brand X’). ii The questions presented are: 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err when it dismissed plaintiffs’ challenge to DOI’s approval of a trust transfer for the Ione Band which was not a recognized tribe in 1934 as required by the IRA? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit err when it dismissed plaintiffs’ challenge to NIGC’s authority to approve a gaming ordinance for the Ione Band which has no Indian lands as defined by IGRA? 3. Did the Ninth Circuit err when it dismissed plaintiffs’ claim that federal acknowledgement as a tribe under 25 CFR Part 83 is a prerequisite for the Ione Band to receive IRA and IGRA benefits? iii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEEDINGS The parties include: A. Petitioners. 1. No Casio In Plymouth (NCIP) — a nonprofit community interest group. . 2. Individual Plaintiffs members or supporters of NCIP, including: a. Dueward W. Cranford II, b. Dr. Elida A. Malick, c. Jon Colburn, d. David Logan, e. William Braun, and f. Catherine Coulter. B. Respondents. 1. National Indian Gaming Commission 2. NIGC Chairman Chaudhuri 3. Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke 4. Deputy Secretary Donald Bernhart 5. Department of Interior 6. Acting Assistant Secretary Laverdure 7. BIA Regional Director Dutschke C. 1. Ione Band of Miwok Indians