## Facts

- Congress restored the Auburn Indian Band to federal recognition in 1994 through the Auburn Indian Restoration Act (AIRA) and authorized creation of a new reservation.
- The Secretary of the Interior took land in Placer County, California, into trust for the Tribe as part of that new reservation.
- The Tribe sought to conduct Class III gaming on the trust land.
- The Secretary concluded the land qualified under IGRA § 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii) as “lands restored to an Indian tribe that is restored to Federal recognition,” allowing gaming without using IGRA § 2719(b)(1)(A).
- The City of Roseville, the City of Rocklin, and a local nonprofit opposed the decision, arguing the land was not “restored lands” and that the Secretary had to make a “not detrimental to the surrounding community” finding and obtain the California Governor’s concurrence.
- The district court dismissed the challenge, accepting the Secretary’s interpretation of IGRA; the Cities appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Placer County trust land qualifies as “restoration of lands” under IGRA § 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii) for a tribe restored to federal recognition.
2. If it qualifies, whether the Secretary must still comply with IGRA § 2719(b)(1)(A)’s “no detriment” finding and gubernatorial concurrence requirements.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court.
- The court held the trust land qualified under IGRA’s restored-lands exception, even though it was not the Tribe’s former reservation land and would be used for gaming.
- Because the land fell within § 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii), the Secretary was not required to proceed under § 2719(b)(1)(A) and did not need a “no detriment” finding or gubernatorial concurrence.

## Legal Principles

- IGRA § 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii) provides an independent exception permitting gaming on “lands restored” to a tribe restored to federal recognition; satisfying that exception removes the need to meet § 2719(b)(1)(A)’s additional conditions.
- In determining “restored lands,” courts consider statutory text, structure, and congressional purpose, including IGRA’s goal of supporting tribal economic development and self-sufficiency.
- A restoration statute authorizing a new reservation supports treating newly acquired trust land as “restored” for IGRA purposes, even if the land is not the same as, or contiguous to, the tribe’s prior land base.
- Statutory ambiguities affecting Indian tribes are construed liberally in favor of tribes (Indian canon of construction), supporting broader readings of restoration provisions when consistent with statutory purpose.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that land taken into trust for a tribe restored to federal recognition under AIRA qualified as “restored lands” under IGRA, allowing Class III gaming without the Secretary making a surrounding-community “no detriment” finding or obtaining the Governor’s concurrence.


City of Roseville v. Norton, 348 F.3d 1020 (D.C. Cir. 2003)