Date: November 25,2003 

To: Chairman Hogen 

From: Acting General Counsel 

Subject: Whether the Shingle Springs Rancheria is Indian lands on which gaming 

may be conducted pursuant to IGRA 

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) requires that management contracts be approved by 

the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC). 25 U.S.C.4 2705(a)(4). On 

August 8, 2000, NIGC received a Management Agreement, dated May 5, 2000, regarding 

Gaming Development and Management Agreement between the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok 

Indians (Shingle Springs, Tribe, or Band) and Lakes KAR-Shingle Springs, LLC (Lakes or 

Manager). Subsequent revisions have been submitted and review of the agreement is still ongoing. 

In the course of reviewing management contracts, NlGC determines whether the gaming will be 

conducted on Indian lands. This Memorandum addresses whether the proposed gaming facility, 

which will be on the Shingle Springs Rancheria, would be on Indian lands on which the Tribe 

can conduct gaming. 

Approval of management contracts also entails review pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). In January 2002, the Chairman signed a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) based on the Tribe's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed casino. 

Approval of that FONSI is now the subject of federal litigation. On August 21,2002, El Dorado 

County sued NIGC and DO1 alleging, among other things, that the NEPA review process was 

inadequate and that the land on which the casino was to be built was not Indian lands. El Dorado 

County does not dispute that the casino is to be built on the Rancheria but alleges that the 

Rancheria is not held in trust and that a gaming operation built on the Rancheria would therefore 

not be on Indian lands. 

Having reviewed documentation that was submitted for the EA and in support of the 

Management Agreement, we find that the proposed casino site does in fact constitute Indian 

lands on which the Shingle Springs Band may conduct gaming. Pursuant to the Memorandum of 

Understanding between NlGC and the U.S. Department of the Interior POI), DO1 has reviewed 

this opinion and concurs. 

LAND DESCRlPTION 

At issue is whether a one hundred sixty (160) acre parcel of land located in El Dorado County, 

California, constitutes Indian lands. The parcel was acquired by the United States on March 11, 

1920, through a deed fkom the Estate of Walter J. Meldrum to the United States of America 

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1441 L St. NW, Suite 9100. Washington. DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 www.~tcc.cov 

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland. OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK 
Shingle Springs Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 2 

[Barnes submission, Exh. 11. That deed provides that, for a sum of $1,400, the Estate deeds to 

the United States "The Northwest one-quarter (N.W. %) of section twenty-nine (29) in township 

ten (10) North of Range Ten (10) East, M.D. B&M." The land was designed "for the use and 

occupancy of the Sacramento Verona-Band of Homeless Indians." That acquisition came after 

p approximately four (4) years of work by the John J. Terrell, Inspector and Special Indian Agent 

for the Department of the Interior, to purchase lands for the Sacramento-Verona Indians 

[Thompson Associates, Attachment 21. 

It should be noted that the name of the Shingle Springs Band evolved over time but that the Band 

has been and continues to be the tribe for which the Rancheria was established and which 

exercises governmental power over the land. The March 11, 1920, deed "for the use and 

occupancy of the Sacramento-Verona Band of Homeless Indians" indicates the original name of 

the Tribe '[Barnes submission, Exh. 11. The Department of the Interior continued to use this name 

when, in its August 7, 1970, letter to Genevieve Cayton, it requested that she prove that she was 

a direct descendant of the Sacramento-Verona Band. "Only those Indians who can prove their 

direct relationship to the groups of Indians for whom the rancheria was acquired will be 

permitted to occupy the land," BIA Area Director William E. Finale wrote [Thompson 

Associates, Attachment 71. 

On August 7, 1970, BIA wrote to 54 people who, according to BIA records, were descendants of 

the Sacramento-Verona Band, notifying them of Ms. Cayton's claim to the Rancheria land 

[Thompson Associates, Attachment 93. Subsequently a meeting of the descendants was called 

[Thompson Associates, Attachment 101. At that meeting it was decided "by those present who . 

were named on the 1916 Census, or their descendants" to establish a committee to address issues . 

involving the Shingle Springs Rancheria [Thompson Associates, Attachment 101. 

Minutes from the June 2, 1975, meeting show the membership beginning to call itself "members 

of the Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract)" [Thompson Associates, Attachment 243, thus 

identifying members through the use of their land base. 

The 1976 Articles of Association make clear that the people who descended from the 

Sacramento-Verona Band later identified themselves as the Shingle Springs Band. The name of 

the document is "Articles of Association of the Shingle Springs Band El Dorado County, 

California." It identifies membership as persons listed on the 1916 Census of Indians "at and 

near Veronay' and those persons' descendents [Barnes submission, Exh. 3-C]. Subsequent 

activities undertaken by the Band, for example, correspondence with BIA regarding the Band's 

attempt to obtain improved access to the Rancheria, have the Band identifying itself as Shingle 

Springs Rancheria [Thompson Associates, Attachment 321. 

In short, the Shingle Springs Band is the name used now by the Sacramento-Verona Band of 

Homeless Indians. The history of the acquisition of land for the Scramento-Verona Band is, 

therefore, the history of the Shingle Springs Rancheria 
Shingle Springs Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 3 

APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF IGRA 

An Indian tribe may engage in gaming under IGRA only on "Indian lands" that are "within such 

tribe's jurisdiction." 25 U.S.C. 5 2710(b). If the proposed lands are not within the limits of an 

Indian reservation, the tribe may conduct gaming only if it exercises "governmental power" over 

those lands. 25 U.S.C. $2703(4)(B); 25 C.F.R. $ 502.12(b). 

IGRA defines "Indian lands" as: 

(A) all lands within the limits of any Indian reservation; and 

(B) any lands title to which is either held in trust by the United States for the benefit 

of any Indian tribe or individual or held by any Indian tribe or individual subject 

to restriction by the United States against alienation and over which an Indian 

tribe exercises governmental power. 

25 U.S.C. 2703(4). 

NIGC regulations further clarify the Indian lands definition: 

Indian lands means: 

(a) Land within the limits of an Indian reservation; or 

(b) Land over which an Indian tribe exercises governmental power and that is 

either -- 

(I) Held in trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or 

individual; or 

(2) Held by an Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction by the United States 

against alienation. 

25 C.F.R. 502.12. 

ANALYSIS 

At issue is whether a gaming operation built on the Shingle Springs Rancheria would be on 

Indian lands. We find that the Shingle Springs Rancheria in California is a reservation and that 

gaming that takes place there is "Indian lands" as defined by 25 U.S.C. 3 2703(4)(A) and 25 

C.F.R. 502,12(a). 

We also find that the Shingle Springs Band has theoretical jurisdiction over the Rancheria and so 

may conduct gaming there pursuant to 25 U.S.C. §2710(b)(l) and (d)(l). 

I. Rancherias Are Reservations. 

We first turn to whether the Shingle Springs Rancheria meets a definition of "Indian lands." We 

find that it meets the first definition of Indian lands because the Rancheria is a reservation. 25 
Shingle Springs Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 4 

U.S.C. 8 2703(4)("The term 'Indian lands' means-(A) all lands within the limits of any Indian 

reservation"); 25 CFR $ 502.12(a) ("Indian lands means: (a) Land within the limits of an Indian 

reservation"). 

The conclusion that a rancheria is a reservation is long standing and widely accepted. In 1939, 

the Acting Solicitor of the Department of the Interior reasoned that tracts of land in Sonoma 

County that were owned by the United States and purchased for the use of landless Indians in 

California were reservations. Determining that the State of California did not have jurisdiction 

to compel Indians on rancherias to obtain dog licenses, the Solicitor concluded: 

These areas have been assigned to and are now occupied by certain designated 

bands of Indian. They are, for all practical purposes, small reservations. 

Solicitor's Opinion, M-28958 (April 26, 1939) (attached). More recently, the federal district 

court for the Northern District of California outlined the history of the rancherias in Central and 

Northern California: 

In 1906, C.E. Kelsey, a San Jose attorney, was commissioned by the United States 

Indian office to investigate and report on the conditions of California Indians.. .. He recommended to the Commissioner of. Indian Affairs that the government 

purchase land for individual Indian families in tracts not exceeding ten acres.. .. Kelsey's report was submitted to Congress through the Commissioner of Indian 

Affairs and the Secretary of the Interior with a recommendation that his plan for 

California Indians be adopted. As a result of these actions, the Indian Office 

Appropriation Act of 1906 appropriated $100,000 and directed the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs to: "purchase for the use of the Indians of California now residing 

on reservations which do not contain land suitable for cultivation, and for Indians 

who are not now upon reservations in said State, suitable tracts or parcels of land, 

. . . as the Secretary of the Interior may deem proper" [cites omitted]. Parcels of 

land, called rancherias, were purchased under the 1906 Act and under subsequent 

acts to implement Kelsey's original scheme. 

Duncan v. Andrus, 5 1 7 F.Supp. 1,2 (N.D. Calif. 1977) (finding that the Robinson Rancheria had 

been unlawhlly terminated). 

In a companion case to Duncan v. Andrus, the U.S. Court of Claims asserted that rancherias are 

reservations. In Duncan v. United States, 667 F.2d 36, 38 (Ct. CI. 1981), the Porno Indians of 

the Robinson Rancheria sought monetary damages fkom the United States for damages caused by 

invalid termination of the rancheria. The rancheria had been created when the Congress in 1906 

appropriated money to purchase land for the use of California Indians. In the act, Congress did 

not state that the California land would be held in trust. Nevertheless, the court held, the land 

was to be treated as a reservation: 

Rancherias are numerous small Indian reservations or communities in California, 

the lands for which were purchased by the Government (with Congressional 
Shingle Springs Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 5 

authorization) for Indian use fkom time to time in the early years of this century-- 

a program triggered by an inquiry (in 1905-06) into the landless, homeless or 

penurious state of many California Indians. 

Duncan v. United States, 667 F.2d at 38 (Ct. G1. 1981) (quoted in Governing Council of 

Pinoleville Indian Community v. Mendocino County, 684 F. Supp. 1042, 1043 n. 1 (N.D. Calif. 

1988)). 

We note that the State of California has taken the position that gaming on the Rancheria would 

be on reservation land. The gaming compact entered into by the State and the Band specifically 

states: "The Tribe does not currently operate a gaming facility that offers Class Ill gaming 

activities. However, on or after the effective date of this Compact, the Tribe intends to develop 

and operate a gaming facility offering Class III gaming activities on its reservation land, which 

is located in El Dorado County of California [emphasis added]." Section (C) of Compact 

Preamble. The compact, approved by the U.S. Department of the Interior on May 5, 2000, 

recognizes that rancherias are reservations for the purposes of gaming. 

In short, the Shingle Springs Rancheria is a reservation and so meets IGRA's and the NIGC 

regulation's definitions of "Indian lands." 25 U.S.C. 5 2703(4) ("The term 'Indian lands' 

means-(A) all lands within the limits of any Indian reservation"); 25 CFR 5 502,12(a) ("Indian 

lands means: (a) Land within the limits of an Indian reservation"). According to the 

Environmental Assessment, the proposed gaming operation is to be built within the limits of the 

Shngle Springs Rancheria. Gaming therefore would be on Indian lands as required by IGRA. 

II. Land Need Not Have Been Formally Taken into Trust to Be Indian Lands. 

We note that reservation status and even trust status is not dependent on whether the land is 

acquired explicitly through the taking-into-trust process. The Duncan court found that the 

rancheria land in question had reservation status despite lack of trust terminology: 

While not expressly stating that the United States held the land as trustee, 

Congress clearly contemplated that this land have the same general status as 

reservation lands. In addition to purchasing lands, the 1906 Act authorized the 

Secretary of the Interior to "fence, survey and mark the boundaries of such Indian 

Reservations." See generally United States Department of the Interior, Federal 

Indian Law 609 (rev. ed. 1958), (not necessary that Congress use the word 

"reservation" to create Indian reservation lands); United States v. McGowan, 302 

U.S. 535, 538-9 (1938). Congress also intended that the Interior Department 

supervise this Indian property; Interior did so continuously until the termination at 

issue. 

667 F.2d at 41. Moreover, the Rancheria Act of 1958, which provided for termination of 

rancherias, "clearly states the understanding of the 1958 Congress that Rancheria lands had been 

and would continue to be held in trust until final termination" even absent specific trust 
Shingle Springs Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 6 

documents. Id.' The Duncan court found liability on the part of the federal government 

stemming fkom the trust relationship to the tribe that existed despite the fact that no specific trust 

document existed. 

Like the Robinson Rancheria, the Shingle Springs Rancheria was not specifically acquired as a 

trust property. Nonetheless, the Interior Department has historically treated the property as trust 

land and treated its relationship to the Shingle Springs Band as one of a fiduciary. The trust-like 

status of the land is evidenced by the circumstances of the United States' acquisition of the land. 

The land was deeded to the United States on March 1 1,1920, pursuant to the Homeless Indians Act 

of June 21,1906 and April 30,1908. The deed stated that the land was "for the use and occupancy 

of the Sacramento Verona-Band of Homeless Indians." The acquisition was the outcome of 

several years of work by John J. Terrell, Inspector and Special Indian Agent for the Department 

of the Interior, to purchase lands for "remnant bands of Indians," known as the SacrarnentoVerona Indians [Thompson Associates, Attachment 2; see also Barnes submission, Exhibit 43. 

Correspondence between Mr. Terrell and the U.S. Department of Interior's Indian Service 

indicates concerted efforts by Mr. Terrell to accomplish his assigned mission of finding landless 

Indians around Sacramento a permanent home [Thompson Associates, Attachment 21. 

That Terrell's mission was to create a type of reservation for the landless Indians is made clear 

by correspondence between him and the Chief Clerk for the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in 

which Terrell was questioned about his inclusion of several people in his 1916 Census of the 

"Verona-Sacramento River Indians" who may be Hawaiians [Id. at December 4, 191 6, letter]. 

Terrell responded that the three or four Hawaiians are men that had manied "native California 

Indian women, mostly full bloods" and that these people would need to be included in the census 

of Indians who would live on the land since they were "very much attached to their women and 

children, therefore, will not likely desert them .... The proabilities [sic] are that sooner or later 

most, if not all the Indians of these Hawaiian Indians, will desire to go upon this home.. .[T]heir 

families will surely desire to identify themselves with these, or rather reidentifl themselves with 

these two remnant bands." [Id. at December 3, 1917, letter]. Terrell expressed concern that the 

landless Indians will not be able to afford living on the land obtained for them ['me chief 

trouble has been and will continue that, these non-reservation Indians (landless) having to live 

from hand to mouth, are hardly able to take advantage of these land purchases, not financial able 

to secure material sufficient to erect even a cheap house, therefore, with many the taking 

advantage of such opportunities will be slow."] 

In response to Mr. Terrell's work, the Indian Service directed him to purchase the land "for the 

use and occupancy of the Sacramento-Verona bands of Indians of El Dorado County, California7' 

[Id. at January 12, 1918, letter]. The Indian Service also stated that the "Hawaiian Jndians" who 

had "intermarried with the California Indians" were to be able to join the bands on a case-bycase basis. 

- - 

' In 1958, Congress enacted the California Rancheria Act (P.L. 85-67 1,72 Stat. 61 9-62 I), amended in 1964 (P.L. 

88-419,78 Stat. 390-91). The 1958 Act terminated the trust relationship between the United States and the Indian 

people on 41 enumerated rancherias and reservations in California. The 1964 amendment included all rancherias 

and reservations lying wholly within California. 
Shingle Springs Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 7 

On June 15, 1918, the owner of the land, Mr. Walter J. Meldnun, requested that the Indian 

Service return the contract for the purchase of the land for the landless Indians. The Indian 

Service responded with a demand to know "whether or not you intend to abide by the terms of 

the said contract" [Id. at August 15, 1918, letter]. When Mr. Meldrum subsequently died, the 

federal government requested that the estate submit the deed for the land: "The deed may be in 

the usual form employed in California; the conveyance should be to the United States of 

America for the use and occupancy of the Sacramento-Verona Band of Landless Indians of 

California" [Id. at April 9, 191 9, letter]. On April 12,1920, the attorney for the Meldrum estate 

sent the Commissioner of Indian Affairs the abstract and deed to the parcel of land [Thompson 

Associates, Attachment 31. 

The history of the acquisition of the Rancheria leads to the conclusion that the land was intended 

to be and was in fact acquired for a very specific purpose: habitation by what was left of 

Sacramento-area Indians. Subsequent history also shows that the Department of the Interior 

maintained the land as a trust acquisition for the Indians, who became known as the Shingle 

Springs Band of Miwok Indians. 

For reasons that are unclear, perhaps the minimal accessibility of the land, the Shingle Springs 

Rancheria was not inhabited after the federal government acquired it for the local landless 

Indians. The Department of the Interior retained its trust relationship to the Indians through the 

land, however. In the 1960s under the Rancheria Act, the BL4 tried four times to sell the 

Rancheria. [Thompson Associates, Attachments 6 and 10; Barnes submission, Exh. 41. Because 

offers were significantly below the property's appraised value, the land was not sold. 

When BIA received a claim in the 1970s that a Genevieve Cayton had taken possession of the 

Rancheria, BIA asked her to furnish evidence that she was a descendant of the SacrarnentoVerona Band of Homeless Indians, stating, "Only those Indians who can prove their direct 

relationship to the groups of Indians for whom the rancheria was acquired will be permitted to 

occupy the land" [Thompson Associates, Attachment 73. Further evidence that the government 

treated the land as trust land is that BIA also notified known members of descendants of the band 

of Ms. Cayton's claim [Id., Attachment 91 and held a meeting November 30, 1970, among the 

BIA and several members of the band to discuss what to do with the land [Id., Attachment 101. 

At that time the Band decided that it should determine its exact membership. 

In 1998, the BIA reasserted in a letter to a Rancheria resident that the Shingle Springs Rancheria 

"was purchased by the United States for Indian use7' and that the Rancheria "is the recognized 

land base for the Shingle Springs Band of Jndians" [Barnes submission, Exh. 11. 

The fact that Congress acquired the Shingle Springs Rancheria specifically for the Sacrarnentoarea homeless Indians, held it for them, sought defeasance of the land, kept the land when no 

adequate bid was received, and reasserted the land's purpose as a base for the Shingle Springs 

Band of Indians all indicate that the Rancheria is held by the United States in effect as trust land. 

This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the BIA continues to recognize rancheria lands held 

for Indian tribes as de facto trust lands. In a March 29,2002, letter to the Chai~person of the Dry 
Shingle Springs Jndian Lands Opinion 

Page 8 

Creek Rancheria, Dale Risling, Sr., Superintendent of BM7s Central Califomia Agency, 

addressed the issue of the status of the Dry Creek Rancheria. That rancheria was held in fee 

pursuant to a 191 5 deed to the United States. The United States had purchased the land pursuant 

to the 191 4 Indian Appropriation Act. Mr. Risling stated: 

There is no distinction between the way the United States acquired and holds title 

to the Dry Creek Rancheria on the one hand, and "trust" or "reservation" status of 

Indian lands generally, on the other hand. All Indian trust lands are held in fee by 

the United States "for the benefit" of Indians. Given the United States' trust 

relationship with, and fiduciary duty to, the Dry Creek Band, the Tribe's lands are 

held in trust, regardless of whether the word "trust" is in the deed. 

[Administrative Record #2a.] Acting Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs Aurene Martin 

confirmed this position in an April 9, 2003, letter to Representative Mike Thompson. "We 

concur with the Superintendent's ditermination," Martin said. "Our views regarding this matter 

recently have been upheld by the U.S. district court for the Northern District of California in 

ProschoId v. United States. . . .'72 

Concurring with the Superintendent's determination that the Dry Creek Rancheria was held in 

trust, Martin added: 

We believe that the Dry Creek Rancheria lands are within the definition of the 

term "Indian lands" as defined in 25 U.S.C. 2703(4) because they are both within 

the limits of the Band's reservation and are held in trust for the benefit of the 

Band. Finally, the Band has negotiated a Class ID gaming compact with the State 

of California, and this compact has been approved by the Secretary of the 

Interior.. . . 

[Administrative Record #2b]. 

Shingle Springs Rancheria, like Dry Creek and other California rancherias, is land that the 

United States acquired for the benefit of landless Indians, in this case for the Sacrarnento-Verona 

Indians pursuant to the Homeless Indian Acts of 1906 and 1908. The government has treated the 

land as a trust asset of the Tribe. As a result, the Shingle Springs Rancheria is considered de 

facto trust lands and meets the definition of "Indian lands" under IGRA. 

* At issue in Proschold, 244 F. Supp. 2d 1027 (N.D. Cd. 2002), was whether a property owner who had granted the 

United States an easement for access to an Indian reservation could sue the government under the Quiet Title Act. 

The govemnt moved to dismiss, arguing that it could not be sued because the case fit into an exception to 

jurisdiction under the QTA, specifically that the United States could not be named where the land in question is 

"trust or restricted Indian lands." 244 F. Supp. at 103 1. We the easement had been transfmed in fee, the court 

found that the United States had made a colorable claim that the government's interest in the land was "as a trustee 

for the Tnie" and that the government considered the easement to be ''trust assets of the Tribe." Id. 
Shingle Springs Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 9 

m. Shingle S~rinns Band Has Jurisdiction Over the Rancheria. 

For a tribe to be able to conduct gaming, the land on which it games must not only meet a 

definition of Indian lands, but also must be land over which the tribe has jurisdiction. 25 U.S.C. 

5 2710(b)(l) and (d)(l)(A). Indian tribes are "invested with the right of self-government and 

jurisdiction over the persons and property within the limits of the territory they occupy, except so 

far as that jurisdiction has been restrained and abridged by treaty or act of Congress." Mewion v. 

Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 140 (1982). As a general matter, tribes are presumed to 

possess tribal jurisdiction within "Indian country." See South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 

U.S. 329 (1998). 

Historically, the term "Indian country" has been used to identify land that is subject to the 

"primary jurisdiction . . . [of] the Federal Government and the Indian tribe inhabiting it." Alaska 

v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov't, 522 U.S. 520, 527 n.1 (1998). The U.S. Code defines 

bbIndian country" as: 

(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation.. ., (b) all dependent Indian communities.. ., and 

(c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished.. .. 

18 U.S.C. g 1151. 

The Venetie court observed that Section 1 15 1 incorporates two criteria the Supreme Court 

"previously . . . had held necessary for a finding of 'Indian country' . . . first, [the lands] must 

have been set aside by the Federal Government for the use of the Indians as Indian land; second, 

they must be under federal superintendence." Venetie, 522 U.S. at 527. 

Prior to the enactment of Section 1 151 in 1948, the Court had found that reservation lands and 

allotments satisfied those two requirements. See, e-g., United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442, 

449 (1914) (Indian country includes individual Indian allotments held in trust by the United 

States because they "remain Indian lands set apart for Indians under governmental care"); 

DonnelIy v. United States, 228 U.S. 243, 269 (1913) (Indian country includes lands within 

formal reservations). The Venetie court also observed that Congress used the tern "dependent 

Indian communities" in Section 1151(b) to codify the Court's understanding, as expressed in 

United States v. McGowan, 302 U.S. 535 (1938), and United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 

(1913), that other lands, although not formally designated as reservations, may also possess the 

attributes of "federal set-aside" and "federal superintendencey7 characteristic of Indian country. 

Venetie, 522 U.S. at 530; see, e.g., McGowan, 302 U.S. at 538-539 (Reno Indian Colony land 

held in trust by the United States is Indian country); Sandoval, 231 U.S. at 45-49 (Pueblo Indian 

lands). 

Under Section 11 5 1 and consistent with Venetie and other Supreme Court decisions, the Band's 

Rancheria land is "Indian country." As stated above, the Rancheria is a reservation and so meets 

the criteria for Indian country under 18 U.S.C. 5 1 15 1 (a). It was, furthermore, "validly set-aside 
Shingle Springs Indian Lands Opinion 

Page 10 

for the tribe under the superintendence of the federal government," United States v. McGowan, 

302 U.S. at 539, quoted in Yenetie, 522 U.S. at 529, in that the land was obtained and set aside 

for the beneficial use of the Shingle Springs Band. The federal government has maintained 

superintendence over the land as evidenced by the its trust-like relationship to the Rancheria. 

Because the Ranchena is "Indian country," the Shingle Springs Band has jurisdiction over it. 

CONCLUSION 

Case law, past and present practice of the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the State of 

California all indicate that the Shingle Springs Rancheria is, as a matter of law, a reservation. 

We conclude that the Rancheria is therefore Indian lands as defined at 25 U.S.C. tj 2703(4)(A) 

and 25 C.F.R. 5 502.12(a). Furthermore, because the Band has jurisdiction over the Indian lands, . 

it is land on which gaming may be conducted pursuant to IGRA. 

Questions about this opinion may be directed to me or to Cynthia Shaw, Office of General 

Counsel. 

3k,3---&- 

Penny J. Col 

Acting ~enerawounsel 

cc: ShingleSpringsBand 

Lakes1KA.R 

Associate Solicitor-Indian Affairs 

3 We do not address whether the Tribe exercises present day governmental power over the land. That analysis is 

necessary only under the definition of Indian lands at 25 C.F.R. $502.12(b), which provides that Indian lands are 

those held in trust by the United States and over which the Tnie exercises governmental power. In the case at hand, 

the definition of Indian lands at 25 C.F.R §502.12(a) is met. When, as here, the land is within the limits of an 

Indian reservation no showing of exercise of governmental power is required.