Opinion ID: 405041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Pechanga Band's Arguments

Text: 6 The Pechanga Band makes two arguments why we should find that it has a legal interest in the land despite the Secretary's decision not to include it in the patent establishing the Band's reservation: (1) the Secretary lacked authority to remove land from the reservation established by the 1882 Executive Order, and (2) the actions taken by him pursuant to the 1891 Act effectively conveyed the land to the Band. We find neither argument persuasive.
7 The Mission Indians Relief Act of 1891 worked to extinguish whatever interest the Band had in the land pursuant to the 1882 Executive Order. A primary purpose of the 1891 Act was to replace the old, constantly-changing reservations with new, more secure ones. Although the new reservations were to include, as far as practicable, the lands and villages which have been in actual occupation and possession of said Indians, inclusion of the prior sites was not mandated. 8 The Pechanga Band asserts, however, that the 1882 Order was a presidential act that could not be reversed by the Secretary of the Interior. In support of this assertion, it cites Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 626 F.2d 113, 118 (9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 601 F.2d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979), and United States v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 543 F.2d 676, 689 (9th Cir. 1976). Because the officials in those cases were not empowered to convey the land there at issue, we held that their actions had no effect. But in this case, Congress authorized the Secretary to decide what land to include in the Pechanga Band's new reservation. The Band does not contend that Congress lacked power to extinguish whatever rights were created by the 1882 Order, or that Congress could not convey that power to the Secretary.
9 Despite the Secretary's decision not to include the land in the patent, the Pechanga Band urges us to consider the Secretary's apparent desire to enlarge the reservation. The Band has not, however, supplied us with any reason to look past the Secretary's unambiguous actions. Both opinions cited by the Band discussed intent only because the actions taken by the official did not purport to modify the reservation site. Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 626 F.2d at 118; United States v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 543 F.2d at 690. In this case, the Secretary had to issue a patent to the land in order to include it in the reservation. The record is unambiguous that he purposefully elected not to take this final step. We therefore cannot speculate whether the Secretary would have preferred in the abstract to grant the land to the Pechanga Band.