## Facts

- The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land in trust “for the purpose of providing land for Indians,” and defines “Indian” to include members of any recognized tribe “now under Federal jurisdiction.”
- The Narragansett Indian Tribe’s historical dealings involved significant state control; during 1927–1937, federal officials declined to assist the Tribe on the view it was under state, not federal, jurisdiction.
- In 1978, Rhode Island transferred about 1,800 acres to the Tribe as part of a settlement, conditioned on the land being subject to most state law.
- The federal government formally recognized the Narragansett Tribe in 1983.
- In 1991, the Tribe bought a 31-acre parcel for low-income tribal housing; disputes arose about compliance with local building regulation.
- In 1998, the Secretary decided to take the 31-acre parcel into trust under the IRA; the Interior Board of Indian Appeals upheld the decision.
- Rhode Island officials challenged the trust acquisition, arguing the Tribe did not qualify under the IRA because it was not “under Federal jurisdiction” in 1934.

## Issues

1. Whether the IRA’s phrase “now under Federal jurisdiction” unambiguously refers to tribal status at the time of the IRA’s enactment in 1934.
2. Whether the Secretary may take land into trust under the IRA for a tribe that was not under federal jurisdiction in 1934 but was federally recognized later.
3. Whether agency interpretation receives deference when the Court concludes the statute’s text is unambiguous.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the First Circuit in a 6–3 decision.
- The Court held that “now under Federal jurisdiction” in the IRA refers to tribes that were under federal jurisdiction when the IRA was enacted in 1934.
- Because the Narragansett Tribe was not under federal jurisdiction in 1934, the Secretary lacked authority to take the 31-acre parcel into trust for the Tribe.
- The Court rejected deference to the Interior Department’s interpretation because it found the statute unambiguous.
- Justice Breyer concurred, emphasizing legislative history and noting that some tribes recognized after 1934 could still qualify if they can show they were in fact under federal jurisdiction in 1934.
- Justice Souter (joined by Justice Ginsburg) agreed “now” refers to 1934 but would have remanded for further factual development on whether the Tribe was under federal jurisdiction in 1934.
- Justice Stevens dissented, finding ambiguity and would have deferred to the agency’s interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- Under the IRA, the Secretary’s land-into-trust authority extends only to tribes that were “under Federal jurisdiction” in 1934.
- “Now” in the IRA’s definition of “Indian” is read as a temporal reference to the statute’s enactment date absent contextual indicators to the contrary.
- *Chevron* deference does not apply when statutory text is found unambiguous on the question presented.
- Post-1934 federal recognition does not alone establish eligibility for IRA trust acquisitions; eligibility may depend on whether the tribe can show it was under federal jurisdiction in 1934.

## Conclusion

The Court limited the IRA’s trust-acquisition power to tribes that were under federal jurisdiction in 1934, invalidating the Secretary’s decision to take the Narragansett Tribe’s 31-acre parcel into trust because the Tribe did not meet that temporal requirement.


Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009)