Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/101/1286/596132/
Timestamp: 2019-03-25 02:18:15
Document Index: 154754894

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1151', '§ 1151', '§ 1151', '§ 1151', '§ 1151', '§ 1151', '§ 1151', '§ 1151', '§ 1151', '§ 1606', '§ 1629', '§ 1607', '§ 1611', '§ 1625', '§ 1620', '§ 1625', '§ 3101', '§ 1606', '§ 1636', '§ 1636', '§ 1606', '§ 1606', '§ 1606', '§ 1606', '§ 1606', '§ 1162', '§ 1360', '§ 1601', '§ 1601', '§ 4', '§ 1606', '§ 1606', '§ 1606', '§ 1606', '§ 1606', '§ 1636', '§ 1629', '§ 1636', '§ 17', '§ 1601', '§ 1603', '§ 1151', '§ 1151', '§ 1151', '§ 1151', '§ 1636', '§ 1636', '§ 2701', '§ 2703', '§ 2201', '§ 2201', '§ 2801', '§ 1151', '§ 2801', '§ 3101', '§ 3112']

96 Cal. Daily Op. Ser v. 8373, 96 Daily Journald.a.r. 13,963state of Alaska Ex Rel. Yukon Flats School District,unalakleet/neeser Construction Jv, Unalakleetnative Corporation, Neeser Constructioncompany, and Gerald Neeser,plaintiffs-appellees, v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, A/k/a Thenative Village of Venetie, the Venetie Tax Court, Thevenetie Tax Commission, Gideon James, Lawrence Roberts,larry Williams, Ernest Erick, Lincoln Tritt, John Titus, Anddavid Case, Defendants-appellants, 101 F.3d 1286 (9th Cir. 1996) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1996 › 96 Cal. Daily Op. Ser v. 8373, 96 Daily Journald.a.r. 13,963state of Alaska Ex Rel. Yukon Flats Scho...
96 Cal. Daily Op. Ser v. 8373, 96 Daily Journald.a.r. 13,963state of Alaska Ex Rel. Yukon Flats School District,unalakleet/neeser Construction Jv, Unalakleetnative Corporation, Neeser Constructioncompany, and Gerald Neeser,plaintiffs-appellees, v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, A/k/a Thenative Village of Venetie, the Venetie Tax Court, Thevenetie Tax Commission, Gideon James, Lawrence Roberts,larry Williams, Ernest Erick, Lincoln Tritt, John Titus, Anddavid Case, Defendants-appellants, 101 F.3d 1286 (9th Cir. 1996)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 101 F.3d 1286 (9th Cir. 1996)
Argued and Submitted Oct. 7, 1996. Decided Nov. 20, 1996
In 1987, Venetie filed suit in the tribal tax court to collect taxes assessed against the Neeser Construction Company in the amount of $161,203.15. The State of Alaska, as the party responsible for paying the tax, refused to defend in tribal court and brought a federal action in the District of Alaska for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Tribe. The state claimed that the Tribe lacked jurisdiction to impose the tax. The district court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Tribe from further enforcement proceedings. The Ninth Circuit upheld this ruling. State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384 (9th Cir. 1988) (Venetie I). The Venetie I court held that the Tribe's authority to impose the tax upon non-members turned on whether Venetie is a federally recognized tribe and, if so, whether it inhabits Indian country. The court articulated a six-part test to guide the district court in its determination of the Indian country question.
The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reviewed de novo. Hopi Tribe v. Navajo Tribe, 46 F.3d 908, 921 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S. Ct. 337, 133 L. Ed. 2d 236 (1995). The district court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); United States v. American Prod. Indus., Inc., 58 F.3d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the district court's determination that Venetie does not occupy Indian country as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1151(b) is reviewed de novo, but the facts marshalled by the district court to support this determination are reviewed for clear error.
18 U.S.C. § 1151 (emphasis added). This definition applies to both criminal and civil jurisdiction. California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 207 n. 5, 107 S. Ct. 1083, 1087 n. 5, 94 L. Ed. 2d 244 (1987). Venetie occupies neither a reservation nor an allotment. Thus, we must establish the test for determining whether a tribe constitutes a dependent Indian community within the meaning of § 1151(b).
Although the Supreme Court has never resolved this narrow question, we do not write on a blank slate. A clear body of Court precedent emphasizes two central features of the inquiry into whether a given area constitutes Indian country, as a general matter: first, whether the territory is "validly set apart for the use of the Indians as such," and second, whether the Natives who inhabit it are "under the superintendence of the [federal] Government." Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505, 511, 111 S. Ct. 905, 910, 112 L. Ed. 2d 1112 (1991); see United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634, 649, 98 S. Ct. 2541, 2549, 57 L. Ed. 2d 489 (1978); United States v. McGowan, 302 U.S. 535, 539, 58 S. Ct. 286, 288, 82 L. Ed. 410 (1938); United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442, 449, 34 S. Ct. 396, 399, 58 L. Ed. 676 (1914).1
Four circuits, including our own, have incorporated these two factors into more detailed approaches to the question of whether a Native group constitutes a dependent Indian community. Drawing upon the Eighth Circuit's decision in United States v. South Dakota, 665 F.2d 837 (8th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 823, 103 S. Ct. 52, 74 L. Ed. 2d 58 (1982), the First and Tenth Circuits have also adopted a multi-factored test to determine whether a tribe constitutes a dependent Indian community:
Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Watchman, 52 F.3d 1531, 1545 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting South Dakota, 665 F.2d at 839 (citations omitted)); see also Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island v. Narragansett Elec. Co., 89 F.3d 908, 917-22 (1st Cir. 1996). The Second Circuit has endorsed the threefold inquiry originally outlined in United States v. Martine, 442 F.2d 1022, 1023 (10th Cir. 1971), which consists of the three elements subsumed within the second prong of the South Dakota test. See United States v. Cook, 922 F.2d 1026, 1031 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 941, 111 S. Ct. 2235, 114 L. Ed. 2d 477 (1991).
We agree with the district court in this respect: a federal set aside and federal superintendence are the dominant factors of the dependent Indian community calculus. The most plausible reading of the caselaw supports the district court's approach. Although John and Potawatomi concerned reservation lands that would now fall under § 1151(a),2 and Pelican concerned allotment land that would now fall within the provisions of § 1151(c), we do not believe that courts should abandon the basic principles that have informed their analysis of Indian country for decades just because they are evaluating the status of an area that does not fit neatly into § 1151(a) or (c). Clearly, the Supreme Court has stressed the importance of an inquiry into whether tribal land was set aside by the federal government and whether the Natives who inhabit it are under the superintendence of the federal government. See, e.g., Potawatomi, 498 U.S. at 511, 111 S. Ct. at 910; John, 437 U.S. at 649, 98 S. Ct. at 2549. Indeed, in McGowan, a case concerning a dependent Indian community that was decided prior to the enactment of § 1151, the Court enunciated precisely these criteria. McGowan, 302 U.S. at 539, 58 S. Ct. at 288. Furthermore, numerous lower courts have emphasized these requirements. See, e.g., Buzzard v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 992 F.2d 1073, 1076-77 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 994, 114 S. Ct. 555, 126 L. Ed. 2d 456 (1993); Blatchford v. Sullivan, 904 F.2d 542, 548-49 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1035, 111 S. Ct. 699, 112 L. Ed. 2d 689 (1991); Weddell v. Meierhenry, 636 F.2d 211, 212-13 (8th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 941, 101 S. Ct. 2024, 68 L. Ed. 2d 329 (1981); United States v. Adair, 913 F. Supp. 1503, 1515 (E.D. Okla. 1995); United States v. Mound, 477 F. Supp. 156, 160 (D.S.D. 1979); Youngbear v. Brewer, 415 F. Supp. 807, 809 (N.D. Iowa 1976), aff'd, 549 F.2d 74 (8th Cir. 1977).
Although we adopt federal set aside and superintendence as prerequisites to the existence of a dependent Indian community, we believe that these requirements should be construed broadly. This construction accords with the Supreme Court cases upon which § 1151 is based, see Reviser's Note, 1948 Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1151: United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28, 34 S. Ct. 1, 58 L. Ed. 107 (1913), and McGowan, 302 U.S. at 539, 58 S. Ct. at 288. Both cases eschewed a formalistic assessment of the status of tribal land and adopted a more functional approach to the problem of Indian country that focuses on dependence as the primary consideration. For example, in Sandoval the Court held that Congress possessed the power to designate lands held in fee by the Pueblo as Indian country. Congress neither had conferred the lands to the Pueblo, nor held them in trust; rather, they were held in fee under land grants from the King of Spain. Thus, Sandoval suggests that the fact that a tribe holds title to land in fee simple, without any restrictions on alienation imposed by the federal government, should not in itself preclude a finding that the land was "set aside" by the government. A per se refusal to construe fee land as Indian country would conflict with Sandoval, 231 U.S. at 48, 34 S. Ct. at 6; see Narragansett, 89 F.3d at 918. While Sandoval is not inconsistent with a general set-aside requirement, it suggests that a set aside can include land held in fee when Congress designates that land as Indian country.
Likewise, federal superintendence should be interpreted broadly. We cannot agree with the district court's requirement that federal superintendence must be "pervasive," meaning that it be the "dominant political institution" in the area as compared to the state. There is no precedent to support narrowing the federal superintendence requirement in this manner. Proof that federal superintendence is "pervasive" has never been required by the Supreme Court. To the contrary, the Court indicated in John that unchallenged state jurisdiction and noncontinuous federal supervision do not eliminate Indian country. 437 U.S. at 652-53, 98 S. Ct. at 2550-51; see also Indian Country, U.S.A. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 829 F.2d 967, 974 (10th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1218, 108 S. Ct. 2870, 101 L. Ed. 2d 906 (1988); South Dakota, 665 F.2d at 842 (citing John, 437 U.S. at 653, 98 S. Ct. at 2551).
We begin by emphasizing the fundamental principle that statutes affecting Indian rights "are to be liberally construed, doubtful expressions being resolved in favor of the Indians." Alaska Pacific Fisheries Co. v. United States, 248 U.S. 78, 89, 39 S. Ct. 40, 42, 63 L. Ed. 138 (1918); see also Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians v. Wilson, 64 F.3d 1250, 1257 (9th Cir. 1994); McNabb v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 787, 792 (9th Cir. 1987). This canon of construction derives from the trust relationship that exists between the federal government and Native Americans. See Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 17, 8 L. Ed. 25 (1831). "Since Congress is exercising a trust responsibility when dealing with Indians, courts presume that Congress' intent toward them is benevolent and have developed canons of construction that treaties and other federal action should when possible be read as protecting Indian rights and in a manner favorable to Indians." Felix S. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 221 (1982 ed.). Among these canons is the rule that Congress's intent to abrogate Indian rights must be indicated by a "clear and plain statement." See id. at 224.
ANCSA falls into that category of statutes enacted for the benefit of Indians. Therefore, it should be liberally construed, and "doubtful expressions [should be] resolved in favor of the Indians." Alaska Pacific Fisheries, 248 U.S. at 89, 39 S. Ct. at 42. Specifically, congressional intent to extinguish Indian country must be reflected by "clear and plain" language. United States v. Sante Fe Pac. R.R. Co., 314 U.S. 339, 353, 62 S. Ct. 248, 255, 86 L. Ed. 260 (1941). It is with this background principle in mind that we consider the effect of ANCSA.
We disagree. First, the corporations established under ANCSA differ markedly from ordinary business corporations. Natives own and manage the corporations. Under the original statute, membership in the corporations was restricted to Natives for 20 years, 43 U.S.C. § 1606(h) (1), and the 1987 Amendments allow each corporation to extend this restriction indefinitely. Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Amendments of 1987, Pub. L. No. 100-241 (1987) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1629c). In addition, the Act provides for each village corporation to be comprised of Natives from a particular Native village, each an existing Native political and cultural entity. 43 U.S.C. § 1607(a). Indeed, under the Act each village corporation gained at a minimum the surface estate to the very land on which the particular Native village was situated. 43 U.S.C. § 1611(a) (1) (conferring on each local corporation the right to select "all of the township or townships in which any part of the village is located, plus an area that will make the total selection equal to the acreage to which the village is entitled"). Accordingly, the land grants under the Act were far different from mere distributions made to business entities on the basis of monetary value. Rather, they were informed by Natives' historical ties to the lands they inhabit.
Third, the significant protections of Native land offered by ANCSA and its amendments indicate the extraordinary character of these "business" corporations. Under the original version of the Act, the corporations enjoyed nearly a complete exemption from the requirements of the federal securities laws until 1991, 43 U.S.C. § 1625 (original version of statute), as well as immunity from state and local property taxes on undeveloped land, 43 U.S.C. § 1620 (original version of statute). The 1987 Amendments enabled the corporations to extend the former exemption. Pub. L. No. 100-241 (1987) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1625).
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act ("ANILCA"), Pub. L. No. 96-487 (1980) (codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 3101-3233, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1606, 1631-41), has provided further protections to Native land. ANILCA permitted Native corporations to place their undeveloped lands in a "land bank," which entitles them to tax benefits, 43 U.S.C. § 1636. Specifically, in exchange for placing a moratorium on development and sale of the "banked" land, and agreeing to manage the land in accordance with federal requirements, the corporations qualify for federal and state property tax immunity. 43 U.S.C. § 1636.3
Finally, the restrictions on Native corporation stock provided by ANCSA indicate the special character of these corporations. At the election of the corporation, its stock may not be alienated, 43 U.S.C. § 1606(h) (1) (B) (vi), and voting rights may be limited to Native stockholders, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1606(h) (2) (C). Even where the corporation elects to lift restrictions on alienation, it may still restrict voting rights to Native stockholders. 43 U.S.C. § 1606(h) (3) (D) (i). Native corporations may also amend their bylaws to give the corporation the right to buy any stock offered for sale by a stockholder, 43 U.S.C. § 1606(h) (3) (D) (ii), and the right of first refusal on any shares transferred to a non-Native pursuant to intestate succession, 43 U.S.C. § 1606(h) (2) (B).
In reaching its conclusion that ANCSA lands were not set aside for Alaska Natives as such, the district court also emphasized ANCSA's provision for Native ownership of land in fee. It is true that in spite of the protections described above, the lands selected by the Natives under ANCSA are freely alienable, unless the Natives elect to seek the shelter of the ANILCA "land bank." But the mere fact that Alaska Natives hold title to the land in fee does not preclude a finding that Congress set aside the lands for their use and occupancy. Refusal to treat a Native group as a dependent Indian community simply because it owned land in fee would conflict with one of the seminal cases on the subject, Sandoval, 231 U.S. at 48, 34 S. Ct. at 6. Such a rule would also violate principles articulated by the Supreme Court in another early Indian country case, United States v. Chavez, 290 U.S. 357, 364, 54 S. Ct. 217, 220, 78 L. Ed. 360 (1933). There, the Court stated that Indian country includes "any unceded lands owned or occupied by an Indian nation or tribe." Id. (emphasis added).
Before the passage of ANCSA, Alaska Natives were thought to be under the guardianship of the United States and were entitled to the benefits of this special relationship. See Alaska Pacific Fisheries Co., 248 U.S. at 88, 39 S. Ct. at 41; Pence v. Kleppe, 529 F.2d 135, 138 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1976); Cohen, supra, at 739. We believe that this trust relationship survived the passage of ANCSA. This circuit "appears to recognize a federal trust responsibility comparable to that toward other Indians, even after passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act." William Canby, American Indian Law 274-75 (2d ed. 1988) (citing Alaska Chapter, Associated General Contractors v. Pierce, 694 F.2d 1162, 1168-69 n. 10 (9th Cir. 1982)).
The district court found that ANCSA "effected a significant change in relationship as between the federal government and Alaska Natives." The court emphasized that the corporate model introduced by ANCSA constituted "a significant diminution of the power of Congress and the Executive agencies over Alaska Native tribes," and that Congress's policy in enacting ANCSA "strongly suggests a shift from government superintendence to self regulation." The district court concluded that " [t]he federal government no longer exercises that level of active superintendence necessary to evidence an intent to be the dominant political institution in the area in question to the exclusion of the state."
As a threshold matter, we reject the notion that federal supervision must be "dominant" in order to satisfy the superintendence prong of the Indian country test. This "dominant" standard appears to have been determinative in the district court: the court relied on the introduction of state control over Native corporations to support its conclusion that federal superintendence had been displaced by ANCSA. But the introduction of state supervision over certain aspects of Indian life does not eviscerate Indian country. " [A]t times Congress has retained Indian country status but has delegated partial jurisdiction to states over areas of Indian country or over specific legal subjects." Cohen, supra, at 361. An example of such congressional action is Public Law 280, which grants certain states extensive criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indian country. See 18 U.S.C § 1162 (criminal jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1360 (civil jurisdiction). Although this law "radically shifts the balance of jurisdictional power toward the states and away from the federal government .... [it does not] terminate the trust relationship between the tribes and the federal government." Canby, supra, at 176. Courts have determined that tribal jurisdiction--and thus Indian country--exists in states to which Public Law 280 applies. See Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373, 388-89, 96 S. Ct. 2102, 2110-11, 48 L. Ed. 2d 710 (1976); see also David Case, Alaska Natives and American Laws 439 (1984) (" [E]ven P.L. 280 does not deprive a tribe of continuing (although concurrent) tribal jurisdiction"). This analysis indicates that the litmus test of federal superintendence is whether the federal government has abandoned its trust responsibilities, rather than whether the state government has been injected into tribal affairs.
First, the plain language and legislative history of the statute evince Congress's intent to maintain federal superintendence over Alaska Natives. While the Act promotes Native autonomy and disavows any "lengthy wardship or trusteeship," 43 U.S.C. § 1601(b), Congress declared that ANCSA did not "relieve, replace, or diminish any obligation of the United States or of the State or [sic] Alaska to protect and promote the rights or welfare of Natives...." 43 U.S.C. § 1601(c). Additionally, Congress rejected an earlier version of the bill that would have transferred federal responsibilities for Alaska Natives to state authorities. See Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1970, S. 1830, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. at § 4(b) (1) (1970).
Furthermore, the Native corporations themselves are subject to federal controls that have not been imposed upon the general corporate community. Corporate articles and stock ownership are regulated by the federal government. See, e.g., 43 U.S.C. § 1606(e) (requiring that Secretary of Interior must approve Native corporations' articles of incorporation and bylaws and that such articles and bylaws may not be amended for five years without Secretary's approval); 43 U.S.C. § 1606(h) (1) (B) (providing that stock in Native corporations is inalienable at corporations' election); 43 U.S.C. § 1606(h) (2) (C) (providing that only Natives may own voting shares of stock); 43 U.S.C. § 1606(h) (2) (B) (granting Native regional corporations right of first refusal to shares transferred to a non-Native pursuant to intestate succession); 43 U.S.C. § 1606(h) (3) (D) (i) (corporation may amend its bylaws to give corporation the right to buy any stock offered for sale by a stockholder). Additionally, Native corporations may place their land in a "land bank," which entitles the corporation to various tax benefits. 43 U.S.C. § 1636.
Congress did provide Native corporations with the power to opt out of these supervisory controls, see 43 U.S.C. § 1629c(b) (alienability restrictions continue in perpetuity unless rescinded by Native corporation), and the decision to place land in a "land bank" is at the corporations' discretion. 43 U.S.C. § 1636. But these provisions do not indicate a clear congressional intent to terminate federal superintendence over Native corporations. Instead, when viewed in conjunction with the federal assistance provided to the members of these corporations, these provisions at most reflect the general ambiguity of ANCSA's effect on claims of Indian country in Alaska. This ambiguity has been recognized by Congress: "No provision of this Act (the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Amendments of 1987) ... or change made by ... this Act in the status of land shall be construed to validate or invalidate or in any way affect ... any assertion that Indian country ... exists or does not exist within the boundaries of the State of Alaska." Pub. L. No. 100-241 § 17(a) (2) (1988), 101 Stat. 1814. Because statutes affecting Indian rights "are to be liberally construed, doubtful expressions being resolved in favor of the Indians," Alaska Pacific Fisheries, 248 U.S. at 89, 39 S. Ct. at 42, we conclude that the transfer of title to Native corporations--and not to tribes--does not extinguish federal superintendence over the Alaska Natives who comprise those corporations.
The area inhabitants are similarly bound to the federal government. Venetie has enjoyed a long history of interaction with federal officials. Since the early part of this century, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has been involved in the administration of educational and health services in Venetie. The BIA operated a school at Arctic Village until 1970 and at Venetie until 1984. Venetie obtained one of the first approved constitutions under the Indian Reorganization Act. The district court acknowledged that the inhabitants of Venetie maintain "significant contacts and relationships" with numerous federal agencies. And as the district court recognized, the fact that the Tribe has established ties to the State of Alaska "is not inconsistent with a finding of Indian Country if all of the elements of such are proven." See John, 437 U.S. at 652 n. 23, 98 S. Ct. at 2550 n. 23 (" [T]he provision of state services to Indians would not prove that the Federal Government ha [s] relinquished its ability to provide for these Indians under its Article I power.").C. The Established Practice of Government Agencies Toward the Area
On the record before us, it is clear that the federal government continues to be involved in the affairs of the Neets'aii Gwich'in. For example, as noted by the district court, " [f]ederal grants have been approved for an airport at Arctic Village, a 29-unit housing project at Venetie, water and wastewater systems at Arctic Village and Venetie, housing renovation at Venetie, and a self-governance project. There were other similar federal grants as well." This supports a finding that Venetie has met the federal superintendence requirement of the dependent Indian community test.
ANCSA terminated federal ownership of the Venetie Reservation. Today, Venetie owns its land in fee simple, and the federal government exercises few controls (if any) over Venetie's territory. As noted above, however, tribal ownership of land in fee does not defeat a finding of Indian country. Cf. Sandoval, 231 U.S. at 48, 34 S. Ct. at 6; Narragansett, 89 F.3d at 918. It does mean that the Tribe must produce alternative evidence of federal superintendence over Native affairs in the territory. Based on our findings in subsections B and C, supra, we conclude that the Tribe has met this burden.
Those corporations were to be separate from the tribes, could sell land, and could even be taxable eventually, although the land could also be placed in tax-free preserves, just as anyone else's land can be under proper circumstances. The tribes were no longer land based; they were member based. In short, Congress wanted to provide for "maximum participation by Natives in decisions affecting their rights and property, without establishing any permanent racially defined institutions, rights, privileges, or obligations, without creating a reservation system or lengthy wardship or trusteeship, and without adding to the categories of property and institutions enjoying special tax privileges ..." in Alaska. 43 U.S.C. § 1601(b). The tribes would continue as sovereigns, but there would be no more Indian country because the land would not be set aside by the United States "for the use of the Indians as such." United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442, 449, 34 S. Ct. 396, 399, 58 L. Ed. 676 (1914). Nor would it remain "under the superintendence of the government." Id.; see also Op. Sol. Gen. of Dep't of Interior, M-36975, 131-33 (Jan. 11, 1993).
In so doing, Congress disassociated the land from all other claims, including Indian country claims. It did so explicitly when it extinguished all claims "based on claims of aboriginal right, title, use, or occupancy of land ... or ... based on any statute or treaty...." 43 U.S.C. § 1603(c). The very idea of Indian country is, of course, a notion incorporated into a statute. See 43 U.S.C. § 1151. Moreover, the assertion of § 1151 sovereignty over territory is a claim which is necessarily based upon aboriginal title, statute, or treaty. Both were abolished. As we have previously recognized, the provenance of ANCSA was unique, so even the old rule of construction of statutes in favor of Indians "operates with less force." United States v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 612 F.2d 1132, 1139 (9th Cir. 1980). That uniqueness is why the old tests just do not work.
Were we writing on a clean slate, I would eschew the tribe's request and would avoid creating the kind of chaos that the 92nd Congress wisely sought to avoid. Alas, it is too late because we have already taken the position that ANCSA did not eliminate Indian country in Alaska. We have directed that decisions be made on a case-by-case basis. See State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1390-91 (9th Cir. 1988) (Venetie I); cf. Native Village of Tyonek v. Puckett, 957 F.2d 631, 634 (9th Cir. 1992). It is unfortunate that what could have been a tessellation is to be a crazy quilt instead. But if we are to have that quilt, I agree that Venetie's territory is Indian country, if any still exists in Alaska.1 Needless to say, I do not embrace that result with the gusto shown by the majority, and I do not accept all of the majority's reasoning.
The district court noted that "it is not land but Indians which must be under the superintendence of the federal government." We agree. Cf. John, 437 U.S. at 649, 98 S. Ct. at 2549 ("The Mississippi lands in question here were declared by Congress to be held in trust by the Federal Government for the benefit of the Mississippi Choctaw Indians who were at that time under federal supervision." (emphasis added)). The set-aside requirement adequately ensures that Indian country will not be found absent some federal connection to the land at issue
In both Potawatomi and John, the Supreme Court concluded that the territories in question were Indian country because they could be viewed as reservations, construed broadly, and not because they were dependent Indian communities. John, 437 U.S. at 648 n. 17, 98 S. Ct. at 2548 n. 17 ("Inasmuch as we find in the first category [§ 1151(a)--Reservations] a sufficient basis for the exercise of federal jurisdiction in this case, we need not consider the second and third categories [of § 1151]."); Potawatomi, 498 U.S. at 511, 111 S. Ct. at 910 ("As in John, we find that this trust land is 'validly set apart' and thus qualifies as a reservation for tribal immunity purposes.")
The fact that all private landowners, and not just Native corporations, are eligible for benefits under ANILCA is not significant. Only private owners of land adjacent to or directly affecting federal or state lands are eligible. 43 U.S.C. § 1636(a) (1). Even more important, Native corporations receive greater benefits than other landowners--only Native corporations are entitled to tax immunity, 43 U.S.C. § 1636(c) (2). These protections not only evince a congressional intent to preserve a protective relationship with Alaska Natives, one which continues a policy of federal superintendence, see infra, but they also suggest that Congress meant to "set aside" the land specifically for the use of Natives, as such
The State of Alaska has identified four acts of Congress that do not specifically define Alaska Native corporations as "Indians" or ANCSA land as "Indian land." In fact, only the Indian Gaming Regulation Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., defines "Indian lands" in a way that may not encompass ANCSA lands, see 25 U.S.C. § 2703(4) (B), and only the Indian Land Consolidation Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., defines "tribe" in a way that may not include Alaska Native corporations, see 25 U.S.C. § 2201(1). The Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq., adopts the definition of "Indian country" set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1151--the very statute that we interpret today to contemplate Alaska Natives as dependent Indian communities. See 25 U.S.C. § 2801(4). The only other statute to which the State of Alaska cites can be read to support the notion that Congress continues to exercise superintendence over Alaska Natives. The National Indian Forest Resources Management Act, 25 U.S.C. § 3101 et seq., establishes an Alaska Native technical assistance program designed to promote the sustained yield management of Indian forest services. See 25 U.S.C. § 3112(a). The federal government provides this support directly to ANCSA corporations, implicitly recognizing the essentially Native character of such corporations