Amendments to 292.12

1. Rancheria v. Jewell

   776 F.3d 706 (9th Cir. 2015)   Cited 14 times

   • Motion for summary judgment

   The “modern” connection means that the land is within the state or states in which the tribe is currently located and is, by at least one of several measures prescribed by the regulation, in close proximity to the tribe's other lands. 25 C.F.R. § 292.12(a). The Secretary concluded that the Tribe satisfied this requirement. The Secretary also concluded that the Tribe satisfied the “historical” connection under 25 C.F.R. § 292.12(b) because the land in question is next to historic lands.

   PAGE 712
2. E. Band of Cherokee Indians v. U.S. Dep't of Interior

   534 F. Supp. 3d 86 (D.D.C. 2021)   Cited 2 times

   • Motion for summary judgment
   1 more...

   Still seeking an ace in the deck, EBCI contends that even if section 292.12 is applicable here, Interior was wrong to conclude that the Kings Mountain Site meets one of its requirements. Specifically, Plaintiffs posit that the Site is not "located within the State or States where the tribe is now located, as evidenced by the tribe's governmental presence and tribal population," 25 C.F.R. § 292.12(a), because the Catawba are "located within" only South Carolina and not North Carolina. See Pl. SJ Mot. at 31.

   PAGE 111
3. Redding Rancheria v. Salazar

   881 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (N.D. Cal. 2012)   Cited 2 times

   • Motion for summary judgment

   For a tribe that has been judicially restored to federal recognition, as the plaintiffTribe was, Interior will only deem the tribe's later-acquired lands “restored” if the lands meet criteria set forth in § 292.12. See Decision at 5. Section 292.12 requires restored tribes to show three kinds of connections to its later-acquired lands: a modern connection, § 292.12(a); a historical connection, § 292.12(b); and a temporal connection, § 292.12(c). Interior found that the Tribe had demonstrated modern and historical connections to the Parcels but had not demonstrated the temporal connection required by § 292.12(c). Decision at 5. Section 292.12(c) requires a tribe to show that either

   PAGE 1111
4. Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. U.S. Dep't of Interior

   Civil Action No. 19-1544 (ABJ) (D.D.C. Sep. 28, 2020)   Cited 1 times

   In 2008, the DOI, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), promulgated regulations to clarify the procedures it would use to determine whether the exceptions contained in subsection (b) of the IGRA would apply. See 25 C.F.R. § 292.12 (2020). Section 292.12 describes the criteria a tribe "must meet" to "establish connections to newly acquired lands for purposes of the 'restored lands' exception":

   PAGE 3
5. Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. United States Dep't of Interior

   Civil Action 19-1544 (ABJ) (D.D.C. Sep. 30, 2022)

   • Motion for summary judgment
   1 more...

   A tribe seeking to establish a connection to newly acquired lands for purposes of section 292.11 must have “been restored to Federal recognition,” 25 C.F.R. § 292.7(a)-(c), and it must also meet the criteria set out in section 292.12, including that it “demonstrate a significant historical connection to the land.” 25 C.F.R. § 292.12(b). Pursuant to section 292.2, “[s]ignificant historical connection means the land is located within the boundaries of the tribe's last reservation . . ., or a tribe may demonstrate by historical documentation the existence of the tribe's villages, burial grounds, occupancy or subsistence use in the vicinity of the land.” 25 C.F.R. § 292.2.

   PAGE 37
6. Butte Cnty. v. Chaudhuri

   887 F.3d 501 (D.C. Cir. 2018)   Cited 14 times

   This case concerns the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's restored-lands exception. That exception, as noted, permits gaming on property taken into trust after the Act's effective date "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). To meet that exception, a tribe that has regained its federal recognition must prove (among other things) that it has "a significant historical connection to the land" at issue. 25 C.F.R. § 292.12(b) ; see Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. U.S. Attorney for W. Dist. of Mich. , 198 F.Supp.2d 920, 935 (W.D. Mich. 2002).

   PAGE 504
7. Stand Up for Cal.! v. U.S. Dep't of Interior

   410 F. Supp. 3d 39 (D.D.C. 2019)   Cited 3 times

   • Motion for summary judgment
   1 more...

   Finally, Wilton has met the "temporal connection between the date of the acquisition of the land and the date of the tribe's restoration." 25 C.F.R. § 292.12(c). Despite Stand Up's argument to the contrary—which they raise only in a footnote, see Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J. 21 n.6—Wilton included the land in "the tribe's first request for newly acquired lands" since restoration. 25 C.F.R. § 292.12(c)(1). While Wilton first requested acquisition of the Galt site, they withdrew that request in favor of the Elk Grove land. AR13215. The Galt site was not a separate parcel under the "restored lands" exception as Stand Up claims, because the Department never acquired it. See 25 C.F.R. § 292.2 ("Newly acquired lands means land that has been taken, or will be taken, in trust...."). In other words, since the Department never approved Wilton's request for the Galt land, the Department never considered it "newly acquired lands." See 25 C.F.R. § 292.12(c)(1).

   PAGE 53
8. Nation v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior

   3 F.4th 427 (D.C. Cir. 2021)   Cited 2 times

   The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act "allows a federally-recognized Indian tribe to conduct gaming on lands held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior for the tribe's benefit." Butte Cnty. v. Chaudhuri , 887 F.3d 501, 503 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (citing 25 U.S.C. §§ 2710(b)(1), 2703(4)(B) ). Generally, this authorization applies only if the lands had been taken into trust as of October 17, 1988, the Act's effective date. See 25 U.S.C. § 2719(a). But the Act permits gaming on lands that are thereafter taken into trust "as part of ... the restoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to Federal recognition." Id. § 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii). To qualify for this "restored-lands exception," "a tribe that has regained its federal recognition must prove (among other things) that it has ‘a significant historical connection to the land’ at issue." Butte Cnty. , 887 F.3d at 504 (quoting 25 C.F.R. § 292.12(b) ).
9. Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Cmty. of Or. v. Jewell

   830 F.3d 552 (D.C. Cir. 2016)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses

   • Motion for summary judgment

   Moving on, Appellants urge that the ROD broke from past precedent, but the gist of their argument is really that they disagree with the Secretary's finding that the record establishes “significant” connections to the parcel. See Clark County Br. 47 (“[T]he Secretary has required connections based on subsistence use and occupancy to be enduring, substantial, and non-speculative.” (emphasis deleted)); Grand Ronde Br. 36 (“[N]ot just any historical connections will do.”). There is no “sharp break” from the opinions regarding the Scott's Valley Band of Pomo Indians, Grand Ronde Br. 39, the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians, Clark County Br. 50-51 & n.20, or any others, see Grand Ronde Br. 40 n.18. To the extent Appellants think this precedent shows Interior required a higher quantum of evidence in previous cases, those were restored-lands opinions, see J.A. 4303, 4336, where a connection was made “often [to] the very heart of the tribe's territory.” Grand Ronde 39; see also 25 C.F.R. § 292.12(b) (necessitating “a significant historical connection to the land ” (emphasis added)).

   PAGE 568
10. Butte County v. Hogen

    613 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir. 2010)   Cited 86 times

    • Motion for summary judgment
    1 more...

    The Mechoopda Tribe has been restored to federal recognition. The issue at the administrative level was whether land the Tribe purchased and offered to the Department of the Interior to take into trust for its benefit qualified as restored lands. The Act does not define "restoration of lands." The Interior Department and the agency largely responsible for regulating Indian gaming — the National Indian Gaming Commission — believed that any lands "located within the areas historically occupied by the tribes are properly considered to be lands taken into trust as part of the restoration of lands." Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa, and Chippewa, Indians v. U.S. Attorney for W. Did. of Mich., 46 F.Supp.2d 689, 701 (W.D.Mich. 1999). Shortly after final agency action in this case, the Interior Department codified its view in regulations requiring, among other things, that a tribe "demonstrate a significant historical connection to the land." 25 C.F.R. § 292.12(b).

    PAGE 192