Tribal Consultation Reveals Carcieri Pressures On Obama Officials
Speaking at an event that marked the Obama administration’s first real public engagement on the recent ‘land into trust’ controversy, the newly confirmed US Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs admitted that he has been instructed by Obama’s Secretary for the Interior Ken Salazar to make finding a resolution to the concern generated by the Supreme Court’s ‘Carcieri v. Salazar’ decision the top priority for the new-look Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
Assistant Secretary Larry EchoHawk told a gathering of US tribal leaders in Minneapolis earlier this week that he had been given his “marching orders” by Salazar over the issue that has provoked ire across Indian Country.
The Supreme Court’s highly controversial February opinion determined that only tribes “under federal jurisdiction” prior to the Indian Reorganization Act’s (IRA) enactment in 1934 were entitled to apply to the US Secretary of the Interior to have off-reservation land taken into federal trust.
Since the ruling, a whirlwind of debate has ensued over its potential consequences. As the ability to have land taken into trust is a pre-requisite for any tribe seeking to operate a casino away from their traditional reservation, ‘Carcieri’ has raised particularly significant questions for the US$26bn tribal gaming sector.
EchoHawk was speaking at a consultation session specifically arranged by the BIA and Department of the Interior (DOI) to discuss the case’s implications for Indian tribes. Previous hearings have already been staged before committees in both the House of Representatives and US Senate.
EchoHawk said that Monday’s debate in Minneapolis marked “one of the most important consultations ever held” between the US government and Indian tribes. “We need to get this right,” he added, suggesting that the Obama administration could now “move forward at a quicker pace” on the issue following the completion of the Senate confirmation process for President Obama’s appointees.
Two further consultations are scheduled to take place in Sacramento, California and Arlington, Virginia in early July, after which point the Obama administration is expected to adopt a firm policy position, EchoHawk confirmed.
Reiterating the sense of urgency on the matter, EchoHawk noted that DOI Secretary Salazar “wants this done as soon as the last consultation is over”. “If the last consultation is July 8, then he expects something to be done by July 9,” EchoHawk said, adding that Salazar is “energised… and ready to go to Congress on this.”
Sharing EchoHawk’s sentiment for immediate action, Hilary Tompkins, the recently confirmed solicitor of the DOI, also noted that this issue remains her top priority as the Interior Department’s chief legal representative.
Presented with the opportunity to weigh in on possible steps that could be taken to mitigate the potential repercussions of the Supreme Court’s controversial decision, several tribal leaders called for the DOI and the BIA to encourage President Obama to himself issue a public statement on the ‘Carcieri’ issue.
One, widely-touted, solution may be to push Congress towards the introduction of an amendment to the 1934 Indian Reorganisation Act (IRA) that would entitle all federally recognised tribes to take land into trust.
While tribal support for congressional action was evident at Monday’s meeting, Assistant Secretary EchoHawk and Solicitor Tompkins both cautioned that such a strategy could have to overcome significant roadblocks on Capitol Hill, particularly if it was seen to enhance the ability of tribes to set up off-reservation casinos.
However, Tompkins noted that a “legislative fix would resolve complexities” resulting from the ‘Carcieri’ ruling, and stressed that the federal government was “not precluding that as a solution”.
“Being a former Senator, Secretary Salazar may try to move something through the Senate,” EchoHawk speculated.
While they await further action from the Obama administration on the issue, tribal leaders expressed vehement opposition to any proposal that would require tribes to present evidence to the DOI to prove their federally-recognised status prior to 1934.
Michael Anderson, a former US deputy assistant secretary for Indian affairs, said such an action would be “detrimental to tribal sovereignty” and lead to “false distinctions” being drawn among US tribes.
Assistant Secretary Larry EchoHawk told a gathering of US tribal leaders in Minneapolis earlier this week that he had been given his “marching orders” by Salazar over the issue that has provoked ire across Indian Country.
The Supreme Court’s highly controversial February opinion determined that only tribes “under federal jurisdiction” prior to the Indian Reorganization Act’s (IRA) enactment in 1934 were entitled to apply to the US Secretary of the Interior to have off-reservation land taken into federal trust.
Since the ruling, a whirlwind of debate has ensued over its potential consequences. As the ability to have land taken into trust is a pre-requisite for any tribe seeking to operate a casino away from their traditional reservation, ‘Carcieri’ has raised particularly significant questions for the US$26bn tribal gaming sector.
EchoHawk was speaking at a consultation session specifically arranged by the BIA and Department of the Interior (DOI) to discuss the case’s implications for Indian tribes. Previous hearings have already been staged before committees in both the House of Representatives and US Senate.
EchoHawk said that Monday’s debate in Minneapolis marked “one of the most important consultations ever held” between the US government and Indian tribes. “We need to get this right,” he added, suggesting that the Obama administration could now “move forward at a quicker pace” on the issue following the completion of the Senate confirmation process for President Obama’s appointees.
Two further consultations are scheduled to take place in Sacramento, California and Arlington, Virginia in early July, after which point the Obama administration is expected to adopt a firm policy position, EchoHawk confirmed.
Reiterating the sense of urgency on the matter, EchoHawk noted that DOI Secretary Salazar “wants this done as soon as the last consultation is over”. “If the last consultation is July 8, then he expects something to be done by July 9,” EchoHawk said, adding that Salazar is “energised… and ready to go to Congress on this.”
Sharing EchoHawk’s sentiment for immediate action, Hilary Tompkins, the recently confirmed solicitor of the DOI, also noted that this issue remains her top priority as the Interior Department’s chief legal representative.
Presented with the opportunity to weigh in on possible steps that could be taken to mitigate the potential repercussions of the Supreme Court’s controversial decision, several tribal leaders called for the DOI and the BIA to encourage President Obama to himself issue a public statement on the ‘Carcieri’ issue.
One, widely-touted, solution may be to push Congress towards the introduction of an amendment to the 1934 Indian Reorganisation Act (IRA) that would entitle all federally recognised tribes to take land into trust.
While tribal support for congressional action was evident at Monday’s meeting, Assistant Secretary EchoHawk and Solicitor Tompkins both cautioned that such a strategy could have to overcome significant roadblocks on Capitol Hill, particularly if it was seen to enhance the ability of tribes to set up off-reservation casinos.
However, Tompkins noted that a “legislative fix would resolve complexities” resulting from the ‘Carcieri’ ruling, and stressed that the federal government was “not precluding that as a solution”.
“Being a former Senator, Secretary Salazar may try to move something through the Senate,” EchoHawk speculated.
While they await further action from the Obama administration on the issue, tribal leaders expressed vehement opposition to any proposal that would require tribes to present evidence to the DOI to prove their federally-recognised status prior to 1934.
Michael Anderson, a former US deputy assistant secretary for Indian affairs, said such an action would be “detrimental to tribal sovereignty” and lead to “false distinctions” being drawn among US tribes.
Quick Search
Search
© Gambling Compliance Ltd 2006 - 2009