Amador County – A U.S. Court of Appeals Judge in the District of Columbia ruled Friday that the District Court must make a decision on whether the Buena Vista Band of Me-Wuk Indians really has “Indian Land” on which they plan to place a gambling casino.

Amador County argued that the Buena Vista Rancheria’s compact with the state of California received a “no action” approval by U.S. Secretary of the Interior Kenneth Salazar, but that it must also be consistent with the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, relative to the tribe’s land qualifying as “Indian land.” The District Court had ruled that the “no action” approval of the Secretary of the Interior also approved the land as properly qualified. Amador County argued that the land was not “Indian land” because it was not used as a reservation.

Jude David S. Tatel, writing an opinion of the three-judge panel’s decision issued Friday, May 6, said that “although the District Court rejected the Secretary’s argument that Amador County lacked standing, it dismissed the suit, finding the Secretary’s inaction unreviewable under several provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.” Amador County appealed. Tatel said: “We agree with the District Court that the County has standing, but because we conclude that the Secretary’s inaction is in fact reviewable, we reverse and remand for the District Court to consider the merits in the first instance.”

Dennis J. Whittlesey argued the appeal for Amador County, which argued that the Buena Vista Me-Wuks’ land was not a reservation because Amador County taxes the property.

Tatel said the “parties agree both that the sole question at issue is whether the Rancheria qualifies as ‘Indian land’ and that if it does, the Secretary had authority to approve the compact.” He said the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act defines “Indian land” as “all lands within the limits of any Indian reservation” and land held in U.S. trust or land “over which an Indian tribe exercises governmental power.” Tatel noted that the land is “owned in fee by the Tribe rather than held in trust by the United States,” and “it appears that the land can qualify as ‘Indian land’ only if it is an ‘Indian Reservation’.”

The Secretary argued that Amador County agreed in a 1987 case, Amador v. Hardwick, that Rancheria lands “were never, and are not now, lawfully terminated under the California Rancheria Act” and that the “original boundaries” of Rancherias were restored.” Amador County “contends that these sweeping provisions” must be “interpreted in light of the issue being litigated,” that being the “County’s ability to assess property taxes on the former Rancheria lands.”

The decision, “at the parties request,” remands “to give the District Court an opportunity to assess the merits in the first instance.”

Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.