## Facts

- Frank’s Landing Indian Community is a self-governing Indian community in Washington State that is not federally recognized as an Indian tribe.
- The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) permits Class II gaming on Indian lands only by an “Indian tribe” as defined in 25 U.S.C. § 2703(5), and requires approval of a gaming ordinance by the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) Chairman.
- IGRA defines “Indian tribe” to include an organized community of Indians that “is recognized as eligible by the Secretary [of the Interior] for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.”
- Congress enacted a special statute for the Community (the Frank’s Landing Act), amended in 1994, stating the Community “is hereby recognized” as a self-governing Indian community but also providing it “shall not be eligible” for services or benefits provided to federally recognized tribes because of their status as federally recognized tribes, subject to limited exceptions.
- The Department of the Interior determined the Community was ineligible for gaming under IGRA because it was not a federally recognized tribe and was not “recognized as eligible” for the federal programs and services referenced in IGRA.
- The Community sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing it qualified as an IGRA “Indian tribe” or had independent statutory authority to conduct Class II gaming under the Frank’s Landing Act as amended.

## Issues

1. Whether the Community qualifies as an “Indian tribe” under IGRA, 25 U.S.C. § 2703(5), permitting it to conduct Class II gaming.
2. Whether the Frank’s Landing Act and its 1994 amendment made the Community “recognized as eligible” for the federal programs and services required by IGRA’s definition.
3. Whether the Frank’s Landing Act and its 1994 amendment independently authorized the Community to conduct Class II gaming despite its lack of federal recognition.
4. Whether Interior’s determination was lawful under the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Department of the Interior and relevant federal officials.
- The court held the Community is not an “Indian tribe” for IGRA purposes because it is not “recognized as eligible” by the Secretary for the federal programs and services tied to federal recognition.
- The court held the Frank’s Landing Act, as amended in 1994, did not confer broad federal recognition or make the Community eligible for the general suite of federal tribal programs and services required by IGRA.
- The court held the Frank’s Landing Act and its 1994 amendment did not independently authorize Class II gaming.
- The court upheld Interior’s interpretation as consistent with IGRA and the Frank’s Landing Act and therefore valid under the APA.

## Legal Principles

- An entity qualifies as an IGRA “Indian tribe” only if it is “recognized as eligible by the Secretary” for the special federal programs and services provided to Indians because of their status as Indians, a status associated with federal recognition.
- Statutory “recognition” language in a special act does not satisfy IGRA’s “recognized as eligible by the Secretary” requirement when Congress simultaneously limits eligibility for the federal services and benefits associated with federal recognition.
- A statute will not be read to grant gaming authority by implication; absent clear statutory authorization, silence does not create an independent right to conduct IGRA gaming.
- Under the APA, agency action is sustained when the agency’s interpretation is consistent with the governing statutes and is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit concluded that Frank’s Landing Indian Community, lacking federal recognition and general eligibility for federal tribal programs and services, is not an “Indian tribe” under IGRA and cannot conduct Class II gaming, and that the Frank’s Landing Act did not independently grant gaming authority.


Frank’s Landing Indian Cmty. v. Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, 918 F.3d 610 (9th Cir. 2019)