Opinion ID: 186599
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Restored to Federal Recognition

Text: 45 TOMAC's principal claim is that BIA and the District Court improperly concluded that the Pokagon Band was a restored tribe under § 20 of IGRA. The Tribe's designation as restored facilitated BIA's ability to more easily take the Pokagon Band's land into trust. We agree with BIA and the District Court that the language of the statute and the legislative history of the Restoration Act clearly demonstrate that the Pokagon Band is a restored tribe within the meaning of IGRA. 46 In 1988, Congress enacted IGRA, in large part to provide a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments. 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1); see Diamond Game Enters., Inc. v. Reno, 230 F.3d 365, 366-67 (D.C.Cir.2000). Section 20 of IGRA generally provides that regulated Indian gaming is prohibited on off-reservation lands acquired in trust by the United States after October 17, 1988. See 25 U.S.C. § 2719(a). A tribe may be exempted from this prohibition if the Secretary, after local consultation, determines that a gaming establishment would be in the best interest of the Indian tribe . . . and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community, and the state Governor approves the plan. 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(A). Alternatively, the restored lands exception eliminates the aforementioned procedural hurdles where the land in question is taken into trust as part of the restoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to Federal recognition. 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii). In the case of the Pokagon Band, the Bureau determined, and the District Court agreed, that the Band was restored to Federal recognition within the meaning of 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii). 47 Section 2 of the Restoration Act states: Federal recognition of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians is hereby affirmed. 25 U.S.C. § 1300j-1. TOMAC contends that Congress purposefully used affirmed instead of restored to ensure that IGRA's restored lands exception did not apply to the Pokagon Band. In addition to offering no support in the record for this claim, TOMAC's contention overlooks the language of the statute as a whole, disregards similar language in related statutes, and fails to account for the recognized history of the Pokagon Band. 48 As noted above, the Pokagon Band was unfairly terminated as a result of both faulty and inconsistent administrative decisions contrary to the intent of the Congress, federal Indian law and the trust responsibility of the United States. S. REP. NO. 103-266, at 6. To remedy this injustice, Congress enacted the Restoration Act in 1994. The Act's specific purpose was to reestablish the Tribe's status as a federally recognized tribe, 25 U.S.C. § 1300j-1, thus bringing the Tribe within the umbrella of federal services and benefits extended to other federally recognized tribes, 25 U.S.C. § 1300j-2. 49 While IGRA offers no definition of restore, the common use of the term is to put back into a former or proper position. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1936 (3d ed.1993). Congress's enactment of the Restoration Act did both with respect to the Pokagon Band. The House and Senate committee reports, as well as the statute itself, make clear that the Band's proper place is one of federal recognition. The Restoration Act also put the Band back into its former place as a recognized tribe. The Senate committee report explicitly states that while Congress was not responsible for the Tribe's termination, it was nevertheless terminated for all intents and purposes due to faulty and inconsistent administrative decisions. S. REP. NO. 103-266, at 6; see also Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians v. Office of U.S. Atty. for W. Dist. of Mich., 369 F.3d 960, 970 (6th Cir.2004). The Restoration Act clearly remedied that improper termination and restored the Band to its rightful place. 50 Even more plainly, the Restoration Act explicitly states that it is An Act to restore Federal services to the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Pub.L. No. 103-323, 108 Stat. 2152 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300j) (emphasis added). And the Senate committee report describing the purposes of the act states: The [Pokagon] Band's claim of rights and status as a treaty-based tribe, and the need to restore and clarify that status, has been clearly demonstrated. S. REP. NO. 103-266 at 6 (emphasis added). 51 Finally, other decisions in related cases clearly support the District Court's judgment in this case. For example, 25 U.S.C. § 1300k-2 (2000) states: Federal recognition of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians is hereby reaffirmed  (emphasis added). The Sixth Circuit noted that the statute apparently restored federal recognition to these Bands. See Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. United States, 288 F.3d 910, 912 & n. 2 (6th Cir.2002). Likewise, 25 U.S.C. § 1300 l (a)(2000), a statute restoring the Auburn Indians to federal recognition, states: Federal recognition is hereby extended to the Tribe (emphasis added). We read this statutory language to signify that Congress restored the Auburn Band's rights as a federally recognized tribe in 1994. City of Roseville v. Norton, 348 F.3d 1020, 1022 (D.C.Cir.2003) (emphasis added). 52 There can be no real doubt here that the Restoration Act restored the Tribe to federal recognition for the purposes of § 20 of IGRA. We therefore affirm the District Court's grant of summary judgment to BIA on this issue. 53