Opinion ID: 202707
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ABMSA and the Status of the Houlton Band

Text: 104 A final set of arguments about ABMSA, and its interplay with MICSA, comes from the Houlton Band as amicus curiae. These arguments are also without merit. 105 First, amicus notes that while MICSA's § 1725(a) subjects Maine tribes to state law, that provision also contains exceptions for §§ 1724(d)(4) and 1727(e). Amicus reads those two provisions as authoriz[ing] the State and the [Houlton] Band to separately negotiate jurisdictional and other terms. Amicus adds that because these exceptions are introduced by the language [e]xcept as provided in, rather than the word notwithstanding, Congress failed to express an intent to generally subject the Houlton Band to state law. The further inference we are apparently supposed to make is that ABMSA has a similar intent (or lack thereof) regarding the Aroostook Band. 106 This argument is misguided. Whatever the difference between the phrases except as provided in and notwithstanding, it does not bear the weight amicus assigns. By using except as provided in, Congress clearly expressed its view in MICSA that state law will apply to Maine tribes unless one of the two exceptions applies. These two statutory exceptions have nothing to do with the application of state law in this case. One, § 1727(e), pertains solely to child welfare matters. The other, § 1724(d)(4), is clearly limited to arrangements for Houlton Band land acquisition, and the tax consequences that will flow from that. 107 Second, amicus argues from MICSA's § 1725(e)(2), which provides: 108 Notwithstanding the provisions of [§ 1725(a)], the State of Maine and the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians are authorized to execute agreements regarding the jurisdiction of the State of Maine over lands owned by or held in trust for the benefit of the band or its members. 109 Amicus reasons from this that Congress wanted Maine and the Houlton Band to form their own agreement regarding Maine's jurisdiction, and thus Congress did not intend MICSA to contravene the Houlton Band's sovereignty (with the inference, again, that Congress intended a similar effect for the Aroostook Band in ABMSA). 110 Amicus misses the mark. While Congress contemplated the state and Houlton Band negotiating over certain matters, it also clearly set the baseline from which that negotiation would proceed. Indeed, § 1725(e)(2) clearly states that any negotiated agreement would be an exception to § 1725(a). Since there is no pertinent agreement here, § 1725(a) controls, and the Houlton Band's sovereignty has been abrogated (with the further implication that any inferential argument applicable to the Aroostook Band would be foreclosed).