Connecticut v. United States Department of the Interior

No. 99-6042 (228 F.3d 82) (2d Cir. September 25, 2000)

ELR Digest

The court holds that the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is not proscribed from taking into trust for the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of Connecticut land that the tribe purchased from outside an area defined by a settlement agreement between the tribe, the state, and the federal government. In 1983, Congress passed the Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement Act, which identified the existing boundaries of tribal trust land and created a fund to finance the purchase of more land. A decade later, the tribe asked the DOI, pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act, to take into trust land outside of the settlement land that the tribe owns in fee and that was not purchased with settlement funds. The district court held that the Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1754(b)(8), which states that lands outside the settlement lands shall be held in fee by the tribe, prohibits the DOI from taking nonsettlement lands purchased with nonsettlement funds into trust for the benefit of the tribe.

The court first holds that the plain language of the Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1754(b)(8), prohibits the DOI only from taking into trust nonsettlement land purchased with settlement funds. Section 1754(b)(8) states that lands "acquired under this subsection" and located inside the settlement lands shall be held in trust, while acquired land outside settlement lands will be held in fee by the tribe. The phrase "acquired under this subsection" is logically read to mean acquired with settlement funds. This reading is confirmed by the § 1754(b)(8) phrase that "the United States shall have no further trust responsibility" over nonsettlement lands. In order for the United States to have no further trust responsibilities, it must initially have some trust responsibilities. The source of those responsibilities is the DOI's trust responsibility over the settlement funds. The court next holds that the purpose and the statutory structure of the Settlement Act support its holding. Similarly, the court holds that nothing in the legislative history compels a different conclusion than the one it reached. The court also holds that its interpretation of § 1754(b)(8) finds additional support in the canon of statutory construction that statutes should be construed liberally in favor of Native Americans, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit. Last, the court holds that it owes deference to the DOI's interpretation of the Settlement Act that allows the lands at issue to be taken into trust.

The full text of this opinion is available from ELR (13 pp., ELR Order No. L-277).

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Joseph Rubin, Ass't Attorney General
Attorney General's Office
55 Elm St., Hartford CT 06141
(860) 808-5318

Counsel for Defendants
Elizabeth Ann Peterson
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000

[31 ELR 20165]

[OPINION OMITTED BY PUBLISHER IN ORIGINAL SOURCE]