Opinion ID: 52276
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: General Authority Statutes

Text: An alternative contention raised by Appellees is that secretarial authority to promulgate the Procedures derives from the general Indian trust statutes when read in concert with § 2710(d)(7)(B)(vii). See 25 U.S.C. §§ 2, 9; 64 Fed. Reg. 17,535-02, 17,536 (Apr. 12, 1999). To be sure, courts may consider “generally conferred authority” in the statutory scheme to determine the propriety of administrative agency action. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 229, 121 S. Ct. 2164, 2172 (2001). But sections 2 and 9 do not grant Interior “a general power to make rules governing Indian conduct.” Organized Vill. of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60, 63, 82 S. Ct. 562, 564 (1962). Instead, the authority Congress there delegated to the Secretary only allows prescription of regulations that implement “specific laws,” id., and that are consistent with other relevant federal legislation. See Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 232, 94 S. Ct. 1055, 1073 (1974); N. Arapahoe Tribe v. Hodel, 808 F.2d 741, 748 (10th Cir. 1987) (citing Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 91 S. Ct. 814 (1971)). Thus, in Village of Kake, the Secretary issued fishing regulations ostensibly permitted under the White Act and the Alaska Statehood Act. However, the regulations, which allowed the Kake community to operate four fish traps, 38 violated Alaska’s anti-fish-trap and conservation law. Because Interior could point to no affirmative statutory grant of authority that allowed the Secretary to issue regulations in derogation of state law, the Supreme Court held that the Secretary had exceeded the authority granted by sections 2 and 9. Id. at 62, 82 S. Ct. at 564. Village of Kake demonstrates that the Secretary lacks carte blanche to issue regulations pursuant to a generalized grant of authority untethered from the confines of preexisting statutorily defined rights. See United States v. Eberhardt, 789 F.2d 1354, 1360 (9th Cir. 1986). For example, in Eberhardt, the Ninth Circuit approved secretarial regulations imposing a moratorium on commercial fishing on the Hoopa Valley Reservation. The court held that the Secretary was authorized to issue the regulations pursuant to the preexisting fishing rights that were granted when Congress authorized creation of the Hoopa Valley Reservation by statute. See People v. McCovey, 685 P.2d 687, 697 (Cal. 1984) (citing Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404, 405-06, 88 S. Ct. 1705, 1707 (1968)). In similar fashion, the caselaw overwhelmingly confirms that sections 2 and 9 do not empower issuance of regulations without a statutory antecedent. See, e.g., Washington v. Wash. State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assoc., 443 U.S. 658, 691, 99 S. Ct. 3055, 3077 (1979) (sections 2 and 9 effectuate rights granted by treaty); N. Arapahoe Tribe, 808 F.2d at 749 (general trust statutes “together with the Treaty . . . provide the neces39 sary authority for the Secretary to enact these regulations.”); United States v. Michigan, 623 F.2d 448, 450 (6th Cir. 1980) (upholding secretarial regulations governing rights conferred by treaty).19 IGRA, however, does not guarantee an Indian tribe the right to conduct Class III gaming and therefore cannot serve as a statutory antecedent justifying the Secretarial Procedures. IGRA grants tribes the right to negotiate the terms of a tribal-state compact, see 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(A), and by agreement to “regulate class III gaming on its Indian lands concurrently with the State.” § 2710(d)(5). Tribes, likewise, have the right to bring suit against a state for its failure “to enter into negotiations with the Indian tribe.” See § 2710(d)(7)(A)(i). Seminole Tribe, of course, clarified that the tribe’s right is subject to the state’s exercise of an affirmative jurisdictional 19 In addition to the requirement that the regulations be issued in accordance with the rights conferred on the tribe by existing federal legislation, here, IGRA courts have recognized that sections 2 and 9 address the protection and management of “Indian trust resources” – typically natural resources or property. See, e.g., Washington v. Wash. State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assoc., 443 U.S. 658, 99 S. Ct. 3055 (1979) (fishing rights); Chippewa Indians of Minn. v. United States, 301 U.S. 358, 57 S. Ct. 826 (1937) (land allotment); Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. United States Dep’t of Navy, 898 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir. 1990) (fisheries preservation); N. Arapahoe Tribe v. Hodel, 808 F.2d 741 (10th Cir. 1987) (hunting and fishing rights); see also Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 94 S. Ct. 1055 (1974) (payment of general assistance benefits authorized under 25 U.S.C. § 13); Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 62 S. Ct. 1049 (1942) (money held in trust by the United States). Appellees’ assertion that sections 2 and 9 apply here assumes that anticipated gambling revenues constitute an Indian trust resource within the meaning of those statutes. This assertion is especially unjustified since, under IGRA, after a tribal-state compact is in place the Secretary has no role whatsoever in the management or oversight of Class III gaming. See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(5). 40 defense under the Eleventh Amendment. In any case, the Secretary’s acting under sections 2 and 9 cannot sidestep IGRA’s remedial process for two reasons. First, there would have been no reason for IGRA to prescribe any procedures had Congress been willing to or believed it could entrust them entirely to the Secretary’s general powers. Second, the fact that IGRA clearly limited the Secretary’s intervention into Class III gaming compacts constitutes the best evidence of congressional intent to limit the Secretary’s role.