## Facts

- The Chickasaw Nation applied in 2014 for the Department of the Interior to take roughly 30 acres near Terral, Oklahoma into trust to develop a casino.
- The Secretary concluded the Chickasaw Nation had no current reservation in Oklahoma but that the Terral site lay within the boundaries of its former reservation, supporting trust acquisition under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) and gaming eligibility under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
- The Terral site was about 45 miles from a Comanche Nation gaming facility, making the proposed casino a competitor.
- The land was taken into trust in January 2017; the Bureau of Indian Affairs issued an Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
- The Comanche Nation sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging (1) the Secretary lacked IRA authority to take the land into trust on a “former reservation” theory without showing prior tribal governmental jurisdiction over the parcel, and (2) NEPA violations because a full Environmental Impact Statement was required.
- The Comanche Nation moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the casino from opening during the litigation; the district court denied the motion, finding no likelihood of success on the merits.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in concluding the Comanche Nation was unlikely to succeed on its claim that the Secretary lacked IRA authority to take the Terral site into trust as within a “former reservation.”
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in concluding the Comanche Nation was unlikely to succeed on its NEPA claim challenging the adequacy of the Environmental Assessment and FONSI.
3. Whether, given the preliminary-injunction factors, denial of injunctive relief was an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the Comanche Nation failed to make the required strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits.
- On the IRA claim, the court agreed with the district court that the Comanche Nation’s “governmental jurisdiction” requirement was unlikely to prevail against the agency’s interpretation and application of the “former reservation” basis for trust acquisition.
- On the NEPA claim, the court found no abuse of discretion in the determination that the Environmental Assessment and FONSI reflected a reasoned decision that an Environmental Impact Statement was unnecessary.
- Because likelihood of success was not shown, the court did not need extended analysis of the remaining preliminary-injunction factors.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy; the movant must, at minimum, make a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
- Appellate review of a preliminary-injunction ruling is for abuse of discretion, with legal conclusions reviewed de novo and factual findings for clear error.
- Under the APA, NEPA challenges to an Environmental Assessment and FONSI require a showing that the agency acted arbitrarily or capriciously; courts generally defer to the agency’s technical judgments when the record reflects reasoned decisionmaking.
- In assessing IRA trust authority for land within a tribe’s former reservation, courts may defer to the Department of the Interior’s reasonable interpretation and implementation of its trust-acquisition regulations at the preliminary-injunction stage.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of a preliminary injunction because the Comanche Nation did not show a likelihood of success in challenging the Secretary’s IRA trust acquisition based on former-reservation boundaries or the agency’s NEPA decision to proceed with an Environmental Assessment and FONSI rather than an Environmental Impact Statement.


Comanche Nation of Okla. v. Zinke, 754 F. App’x 768 (10th Cir. 2018)