Review expected to have broad impact on Indian land claims across the country

By The Associated Press and The Sun Staff
PROVIDENCE — The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to resolve a dispute over Narragansett Indian land in Charlestown and the federal government’s ability to take property into trust for American Indian tribes, a move that could effectively remove those lands from state and local control.
American Indian rights groups fear the case involv­ing the Narragansett Indian tribe could undermine a sys­tem used by tribes across the country to acquire and gov­ern their lands. The justices will hear the case in the fall.
At issue is whether a 31­acre parcel off Kings Factory Road purchased by the Narragansetts should be subject to Rhode Island law, including a prohibition on casino gambling, or whether the land should be governed by tribal and federal law. The dispute dates to 1991, when the tribe bought the land to build a housing complex for its elderly members. The project remains incomplete.
The state has argued that federal law prevents the U.S. government from taking land into trust, or largely removing land from state and local control, for tribes recognized after the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act — unless they meet certain ancestry requirements or Congress specifically authorizes it. The Narragansetts became a fed­erally recognized tribe in 1983. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston rejected the state’s claim in July.
Rhode Island Gov. Donald Carcieri and town officials in Charlestown oppose the land transfer and welcomed the Supreme Court’s review. They fear the Narragansetts want to build a casino on the site.
“It is simply not acceptable for any state to be stripped of its sovereignty over land within its borders by mid­level bureaucrats in Washington,” Carcieri said.
Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch welcomed the high court’s decision, noting that 16 states have filed so-called “friend of the court” briefs backing the Ocean State’s challenge.
“Sixteen states across the country, from Alaska to Florida, wouldn’t have joined our cause if it wasn’t just, and the reason is clear: With the stroke of a pen, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior can unilaterally strip a state of its sovereign juris­diction by taking land into trust – even when there are currently no federally recog­nized Indian tribes,” he said. “There is something funda­mentally wrong with the principle. We look forward to representing Rhode Island’s interests to the very best of our abilities when the case is reviewed in the fall.”
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who filed a brief in the case, said states’ rights should be defend­ed against “abusive or careless decisions to take land into trust.”
“It will be a profoundly sig­nificant ruling by the court… with ramifications nationally, as well as throughout New England,” Blumenthal said. “The decision is likely to have sweeping consequences (related to) states’ control over land within their bor­ders. It will determine how readily the federal govern­ment can enable tribes to take land into trust – in effect seizing it and immunizing it from many state authorities. We will continue to fight vig­orously at Rhode Island’s side supporting its efforts to defend all states’ rights.”
Meanwhile the Narragansett’s Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas said the tribe intends to use the land for housing. In a January interview he sug­gested the land could also be used for other forms of eco­nomic development.
“We’re trying to get people into those houses as soon as possible,” Thomas said. “I’ve always said Carcieri and the rest of them have a colonial mentality… They fought us when they got off the boats and they’re going to fight us to the end.”
Thomas said that the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case is an opportuni­ty to revisit previous issues – including tribal sovereignty.
“The tribe never gave up its right to acquire addition­al lands in the (Rhode Island Land Claims Settlement Act of 1978),” he said, referring to the law that gave the tribe 1,800 acres in Charlestown. “We believe our rights should be upheld.”
Congress passed the 1934 law to help tribes regain land that had been sold off or broken up under earlier poli­cies. Lawyers for the state have argued that since the Narragansetts were not fed­erally recognized before the law passed, they cannot place their land into trust unless Congress allows it.
Indian rights groups and the U.S. Department of the Interior interpret the act more broadly. They have argued it was intended to not only address past wrongs, but to set the stan­dard for future dealings with American Indian tribes.
The tribe’s housing project has languished for years. In 1999, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued an audit faulting the tribe for spending $3.2 million without building a single, habitable home.
Lawyers say it is not clear whether the tribe could build a casino on the 31-acre par­cel if it is taken into federal trust. That land was pur­chased privately and was not part of the 1978 settlement.
Charlestown Town Council President John O. Craig Jr. said this morning that he believes the U.S. Supreme Court is a fair venue for the tribe to assert its rights. State officials have been hypocritical in their stance opposing efforts by the tribe to pursue gaming – while backing efforts to expand hours and the installation of virtual blackjack machines at Twin River and Newport Grand, he said.
“I think it’s good for the tribe,” Craig said. “(The U.S. Supreme Court) is the best place for the Narragansetts to be heard and treated equally and fairly… We have two casinos operating in Rhode Island. Every time the tribe talks about econom­ic development, the town and state jump right down their throats.
“Nothing seems to be going their way,” he added. “They’ve been pushed into a corner.”
Councilor Katharine H. Waterman, however, said the case is about larger issues – namely, equal rights.
“Although the 31 acres in Charlestown may have served as the catalyst, the court has recognized a far greater issue at stake: Can the United States Government bestow special rights for citizens based on race?” she said.
“Can we support two classes of citizens – one who is subject to the law of the land and one who is not? While we are actively engaged in sorting out the consequences of tribalism in Africa and the Middle East should our government be pro­moting this divisive principal at home? This is the real issue that all Americans need to come to grips with irrespec­tive of creed, race or religion,” Waterman added. “I look for­ward to a resolution ...by the Supreme Court.”