Reznet

Narragansett Indian Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas stands Thursday, Oct. 23, 2008 in Charlestown, R.I., among buildings of a partially completed elderly housing complex on land entangled in a dispute scheduled to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court Monday.AP Photo/Joe Giblin

Supreme Court Hears Tribal Land Case

By Andrew Miga of the Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rhode Island officials told the Supreme Court on Monday that permitting the federal government to hold land owned by the Narragansett Indian Tribe would undercut the state's criminal, safety and zoning laws.

State leaders fear if the 31-acre lot is governed by tribal and federal law, they would lose jurisdiction over it. The tribe could then build a casino on the land or create a tax-free zone that would hurt the state's revenues. Casinos are banned under state law, but tribes can build and operate them on lands held in federal trust.

Justices stepped into the dispute over the federal government's ability to take land into trust for American Indian tribes in a closely watched case that could have a dramatic impact on how tribes recognized after the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act are allowed to buy, govern and use land.

Rhode Island argued that federal law prevents the federal government from taking land into trust for American Indian tribes recognized after the 1934 act. The Narragansetts became a federally recognized tribe in 1983.

"What the government is asking for is the exact opposite of what the statute clearly requires," said former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, arguing for the state.

White House places less stock in 1934 date

The Bush administration said the act allows it to take land into trust for tribes regardless of when they were recognized.

"The Narragansett Tribe is a tribe as that term is defined separately in the act," said Deanne E. Maynard, assistant to the Solicitor General.

Olson cited language in the act that said it applied to "all persons of Indian descent who are members of any recognized Indian tribe now under federal jurisdiction." Olson said the word "now" was clearly a reference to 1934.

Justice Stephen Breyer questioned Olson's view, citing the example of posters reading "Give Blood Now."

"It doesn't mean when it was printed," said Breyer.

22 states want to see stronger limitations

Rhode Island and 21 other states claim the administration is overreaching. They want the court to set firm limits. They warn that trust lands can alter the character of surrounding communities, especially when casino income allows tribes to embark on major projects.

The fight centers on whether a land parcel in Charlestown, R.I., purchased by the Narragansetts in 1991 should be subject to Rhode Island law, including a prohibition on casino gambling, or whether the parcel should be governed by tribal and federal law.

The Narragansetts purchased the land to build an elderly housing complex, which remains incomplete.

The state objected when the tribe, which has unsuccessfully sought approval to build a casino in Rhode Island, asked the U.S. Department of the Interior to hold that land in trust.

Andrew Miga is an Associated Press staff writer.