The State of California v. United States Department of Interior

Background

The State of California and Governor of California Gavin Newsom sued the United States Department of the Interior, Secretary of the Interior Douglas J. Burgum, Acting Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Scott Davis, Director of Indian Education Tony Dearman, and Regional Director of the Pacific Region Amy Dutschke. The State Plaintiffs challenged the Federal Defendants’ decision to take the Shiloh Site into trust for tribal gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s restored lands exception, 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii).

Koi Nation moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), but only for the limited purpose of moving to dismiss the case for failure to join an indispensable party. Koi argued that it was a required party and that the case should be dismissed because Koi had not waived its sovereign immunity.

Intervention

The court held that Koi was entitled to intervene as of right. Koi had a legally protectable interest because, after the land was taken into trust and the restored lands exception was determined to apply, Koi’s exercisable right to conduct Class II gaming attached. The court also noted that Koi had received approval of its gaming ordinance from the Chair of the National Indian Gaming Commission, making the interest present rather than merely future.

The court further concluded that Koi’s interests might not be adequately represented by the Federal Defendants. It therefore granted Koi’s motion to intervene for the limited purpose stated in the motion.

Motion to Dismiss

The court agreed that Koi was a required party and that joining Koi was infeasible because Koi had not waived sovereign immunity. Under the usual Rule 19 analysis, those circumstances would support dismissal because Koi would be an indispensable party.

The court nevertheless applied the public-rights exception. That exception can allow litigation to continue when it seeks to vindicate a public right, even though it may affect an absent party’s interests, so long as it does not destroy that party’s legal entitlements.

The court found that the State Plaintiffs’ lawsuit sought to vindicate a broader public interest in compliance with federal law. The State Plaintiffs alleged that the Federal Defendants improperly used the restored lands exception even though Koi lacked the required historical connection to the Shiloh Site. According to the allegations described by the court, this prevented state and local officials from providing information about the project’s effects on local communities and avoided the balancing process required under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s two-part determination procedure.

The court also found that the requested relief would not destroy Koi’s legal entitlements. The State Plaintiffs challenged only the gaming-eligibility determination under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, not the separate decision to take the land into trust for purposes other than gaming. They sought reconsideration of gaming eligibility through the two-part determination process. The court noted that there was no evidence that gaming operations or activities had begun. It therefore held that the case might impair Koi’s rights but did not threaten to destroy them.

Disposition

The court granted Koi’s motion to intervene for the limited purpose of moving to dismiss. It denied Koi’s Rule 12(b)(7) motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party. Because Koi had not waived sovereign immunity, the court stated that Koi would not be joined to the litigation.