Carcieri V SalazarEdit
Carcieri v. Salazar is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision from 2009 that clarified the way the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 operates when tribes seek to have land taken into trust by the federal government. The case focused on the Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island and the question of whether the Secretary of the Interior could place land into trust for a tribe that was federally recognized long after 1934. The Court held that the Secretary may take land into trust only for tribes that were under federal jurisdiction in 1934, a ruling with wide-ranging consequences for tribal sovereignty, land development, and state-tribal relations.
Background
- The statutory framework centers on the Indian Reorganization Act, commonly known as the Indian Reorganization Act and the program to place land into trust for federal recognition of tribes under the authority provided in the Act. The land-into-trust process is a core tool for tribal self-government and economic development, and it has been used in numerous cases to support tribal housing, energy projects, and other economic ventures. See the provisions described in 25 U.S.C. § 465 and related statutes.
- The Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island sought to reacquire and place certain lands into trust under the IRA. The request prompted disputes over whether the tribe met the statutory requirement that a tribe be "now under Federal jurisdiction" in 1934, a term litigated in the courts below and interpreted by the Supreme Court.
- The legal question centered on the interpretation of the IRA’s trust land language and whether the government's authority to acquire land into trust could extend to tribes that were not under federal jurisdiction in 1934 but were recognized later. This raised broader questions about sovereignty, the scope of federal power, and the reliability of long-standing political classifications in Indian affairs. See the discussion of the federal jurisdiction concept and the broader framework of tribal sovereignty in the context of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Decision
- The Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled that the Secretary of the Interior may not place land into trust for a tribe unless that tribe was under federal jurisdiction in 1934. The majority opinion, authored by Anthony Kennedy, held that the text of the Indian Reorganization Act must be read with its historical context and that the phrase "now under Federal jurisdiction" unambiguously refers to status at the time of the statute’s enactment. In effect, the Court rejected reading the language as permitting later recognition to retroactively qualify a tribe for trust land acquisitions under the IRA.
- The decision was supported by Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito as the majority, with Chief Justice Roberts often identified as part of the controlling conservative bloc on the bench at that time. The dissenting opinions were written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan in various arrangements, arguing that the majority’s textual approach undermined tribal sovereignty and ignored practical realities of tribal governance and recognition.
- The Court’s plurality emphasized fidelity to the statute's text and its historical context, arguing that allowing post-1934 recognition to trigger IRA trust acquisitions would rewrite the statute and open the door to broader, uncertain expansion of federal authority over tribal lands.
Aftermath and reception
- The Carcieri decision has been described as a definitive “Carcieri rule” in federal Indian law—a clarifying constraint on when the trust-lands mechanism under the IRA can be used. Supporters contend the ruling respects statutory limits and avoids retroactive consequences that could complicate property rights and land transactions for non-tribal landowners. They see it as a necessary check on federal authority and an insistence on predictable, text-based law.
- Critics, especially among tribal advocates and some policy thinkers, argue that the ruling undermines tribal self-government and economic development by preventing recognized tribes from leveraging the IRA’s trust land provisions when they obtain federal recognition after 1934. They note that tribes often pursue recognition and land-into-trust arrangements as a means of restoring sovereignty, housing, and economic opportunities, and that the decision creates a bureaucratic hurdle with real-world consequences for tribal communities.
- In the wake of the decision, commentators and lawmakers discussed potential legislative fixes or clarifications to address situations where tribes that were not under federal jurisdiction in 1934 nonetheless seek to participate in trust-lands programs. Proposals and discussions have focused on balancing the original intent of the IRA with evolving patterns of tribal recognition and the modern landscape of tribal governance and economic development.