Opinion ID: 202707
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State Settlement Act and Its Relationship to MICSA

Text: 63 We have held that as a matter of reading MICSA, § 1725(a) clearly subjects the Aroostook Band to Maine law in this situation. That is enough. But because the Aroostook Band relies heavily on notions of equity, we also consider the terms of the state Settlement Act. The terms of that act reinforce our reading of MICSA's language and intent. Indeed, MICSA purported to ratify that state act. See 25 U.S.C. § 1725(b)(1); see also Akins v. Penobscot Nation, 130 F.3d 482, 485 (1st Cir.1997) (treating the internal tribal matters exception contained in the state Settlement Act as incorporated into federal law). 64 The state Settlement Act explicitly created an internal tribal matters exception for the Passamaquoddy and the Penobscots and not for the Houlton Band, the Aroostook Band, or any other Maine tribe. Compare Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 6204 (providing that [e]xcept as otherwise provided in this Act, all Indians, Indian Nations, and tribes and bands of Indians in [Maine] . . . shall be subject to the laws of the State . . . to the same extent as any other person), with id. § 6206(1) (providing that internal tribal matters of the Passamaquoddy and the Penobscots shall not be subject to regulation by the state). MICSA's choice of language echoed the state Settlement Act by providing one legal regime for the Penobscots and Passamaquoddy, and a different regime for other tribes. Compare 25 U.S.C. § 1725(a) (subjecting all Indians in Maine, other than the Passamaquoddy Tribe, the Penobscot Nation, and their members to state law to the same extent as any other person), with id. § 1725(b)(1) (discussing Maine's jurisdiction over the Penobscots and Passamaquoddy). 65 The Aroostook Band takes issue with this understanding of the state law. It argues that while the internal tribal matters exception in the state Settlement Act refers only to the Penobscots and the Passamaquoddy, the internal matters of all Maine tribes are free from state regulation. The Aroostook Band contends that the exception in the statute is actually a savings clause that preserves certain aspects of inherent tribal sovereignty and self-governance rights that generally apply to all Indian tribes. It posits that such a savings clause was needed for the Penobscots and the Passamaquoddy to clarify their retained sovereignty despite their unique status as municipalities under Maine law. Since the other Maine tribes were not given municipal status, the Aroostook Band argues that no internal tribal matters exception was needed for them in the state Settlement Act, so little should be inferred from congressional failure to place such an exception in MICSA. 66 We disagree with this innovative reading of the state Settlement Act. It is not a rational reading of the language. And the reading is also in tension with our precedent. We have held that the internal tribal matters exception has its own unique meaning, and that it does not invoke all of Indian common law. 14 See Fellencer, 164 F.3d at 709-13 (treating Indian common law as but one factor in determining whether something is an internal tribal matter); Akins, 130 F.3d at 488-90 (same); see also id. at 489 (refusing to read the exception as invoking all of prior Indian law because [t]hat would be inconsistent with the unique nature of the Maine settlement). This is hardly the effect we would expect from a savings clause. 15 67 The Aroostook Band's reading of the exception is also undercut by strong evidence of legislative intent. The state Settlement Act clearly intended to give the Penobscots and the Passamaquoddy more independence from state law than it gave the Houlton Band (the only other Maine tribe that asserted a claim at the time that act was passed). In its findings section, the state Settlement Act declares: [T]he Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation have agreed to adopt the laws of the State as their own to the extent provided in this Act. The Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians and its lands will be wholly subject to the laws of the State. Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 6202. It would be illogical to conclude that the Houlton Band had received the same exemptions from state law that had been granted to the two larger tribes. And if the Houlton Band was not given these exemptions, certainly the Aroostook Band did not receive them either. 16