Tejon Ranch Company
The owner of the largest contiguous parcel of private land in California.

Issue:  

A group of Native Americans and David Laughing Horse Robinson claim to be the Kawaiisu Tribe, which is not a federally recognized Indian tribe. They challenged Tejon Ranch’s title to 270,000 acres of land, alleging unlawful possession, trespass and violations of the Indian Non-Intercourse Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

Perkins Coie successfully moved to dismiss the Kawaiisu’s complaint three times in federal district court before Kawaiisu appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, where the Ninth Circuit dismissed the case for non-prosecution. Months later, however, the court withdrew its mandate and reinstated the appeal at the request of Kawaiisu’s counsel.

Solution:

In our argument to the Ninth Circuit, we demonstrated that current ownership of the ranch is traceable to four patents issued by the United States to holders of Mexican land grants, pursuant to the California Land Claims Act of 1851. The Act implemented the United States’ commitment under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 to honor Mexican land grants in the territory that the United States acquired after the Mexican War. It required all persons claiming title to land in California to present their claims before the Land Claims Commission within two years of the Act’s passage.  

The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed, in a published opinion, the district court’s decision that the Kawaiisu had failed to comply with the Land Claims Act and that any title they may have had was therefore extinguished. The Ninth Circuit also agreed with the district court that various other federal Indian treaties and statutes did not convey to the Kawaiisu any interests in ranch land, establish a reservation anywhere within ranch boundaries, or otherwise confirm aboriginal rights to the area.

Additionally, The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rejection of claims arising under the California Environmental Quality Act (against Kern County, California) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act related to the ranch’s plans to develop housing on the ranch.

As reported in Law360, “Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas said the Eastern District of California had correctly ruled that the tribe’s claims, which had centered around a number of 19th century acts and treaties, did not hold up.”  With its title finally clear, the Tejon Ranch Company can now go forward with its development plans. 

Client: 

City of Coconut Creek, Florida

Issue:

The Seminole Tribe wanted to expand its existing casino resort, but the impacts of the expansion were objectionable to the citizens of Coconut Creek.

Challenge:

Years earlier, Perkins Coie had represented the city in crafting an agreement that facilitated the original development of the casino resort, and it would have been hard to stop the tribe from expanding the facility if a favorable decision was made on the expansion of trust land.

Solution:

With our assistance, Coconut Creek and the tribe entered into a mutually beneficial agreement that provided the city with $3 million in annual payments in exchange for support for the tribe’s plans.  The money helped the city provide essential services to residents, and the tribe gained significant additional revenues from its operations.

Client:

The Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Issue:

Perkins Coie has represented the Viejas Tribe on a wide range of Indian law and environmental matters for over a decade.  Our work has included developing the tribal code, assisting with off-reservation gaming proposals, obtaining exclusions from critical habitat designations under the Endangered Species Act and negotiating agreements for power line corridors affecting the reservation.

One long-term matter has been the dispute between Viejas and the Ewiiaapaayp Band over the latter’s effort to build an off-reservation casino close to the Viejas homeland.  The Viejas Tribe stands to lose tens of millions of dollars if the Ewiiaapaayp casino opens on the proposed site.  Our client sought to halt that development.

Challenge:

The Bureau of Indian Affairs had already rendered a decision to acquire land in trust for the stated purpose of opening a health clinic for the Ewiiaapaayp, and less than 10 percent of trust land appeals to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals are successful.

Solution:

Perkins Coie brought an action on behalf of the Viejas as an intervenor, proving that the Ewiiaapaayp’s ultimate plan was to build a casino on the site of an existing health clinic after the Ewiiaapaayp finished constructing the new health clinic on designated trust land.  We succeeded in two different appellate contests.  The cases are Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians v. Acting Pacific Regional Director, 56 IBIA 163 (2013), and County of San Diego, California v. Pacific Regional Director, 58 IBIA 11 (2013).

Client:

Cook Inlet Region Inc.

Issue:

Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRI) is an Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporation based in Anchorage.  Perkins Coie has represented CIRI in a variety of environmental, natural resource and land selection issues for decades. 

Our work includes negotiating and implementing the complex Cook Inlet Land Exchange to obtain lands for CIRI.  We currently advise CIRI on environmental laws to help make beneficial use of its corporate lands, including compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), for the development of CIRI lands and for oil and gas development on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge.  In addition, we advise CIRI on mergers and acquisitions as well as potential mergers and acquisitions. 

In this matter, CIRI wanted to make beneficial use of its corporate lands for oil and gas development and other forms of development.

Challenge:

Our client needed to cut through a thicket of potentially relevant regulations, including the ESA, MMPA and other laws. 

Solution:

Perkins Coie negotiated and implemented the complex Cook Inlet land exchange to obtain lands that enabled CIRI to carry out its plans, advising CIRI along the way about acquiring government contracting firms and ensuring compliance with applicable state and federal laws.  As part of our counsel, we helped CIRI address the Small Business Administration regulations applying to Alaska Native Corporations, which played a key role in these deals.

Client:

Town of North Stonington, Connecticut

Issue:

For over 12 years, Perkins Coie has represented numerous parties in Connecticut to oppose the acknowledgment of new Indian tribes under federal law.  These new tribes’ ultimate goal is to open new casinos. 

Perkins Coie successfully represented the Connecticut clients in defeating three well-funded tribal petitioners in 2004 and 2005.  In June 2013, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn issued new draft tribal acknowledgment regulations that would greatly relax the standards for federal status and position the groups previously denied in Connecticut to achieve positive findings.  The draft became a proposed rule. 

As a result, Perkins Coie was retained to represent multiple parties—local governments, businesses, private landowners, schools and nonprofit citizens groups—to oppose the regulatory proposal and preserve the previous negative determinations. 

In the North Stonington case, two groups of people were seeking acknowledgement of Indian status by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in order to develop large-scale casinos on their lands, and North Stonington wanted to stop that development because it would have detrimental impacts.

Challenge:

These groups were backed by very wealthy investors seeking to open large-scale casinos and by a faction of the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation. 

Solution:

Perkins Coie assembled a group of experts in Indian history, genealogy and sociology to prove that the petitioners did not qualify for Indian status under federal law.  We even reversed a preliminary finding by the BIA in favor of the petitioners by means of appeal to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals.

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe V. Town Of Ledyard

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Defended successfully the Town of Ledyard’s right to impose and collect personal property taxes on property owned by non-Indians but leased to an Indian tribe and used for gaming activities on a reservation. We obtained the reversal of a district court decision holding that the tax was preempted. 722 F.3d 457 (2d Cir. 2013).

Resort And Casino Construction Dispute

Settled a case favorably for a tribal government after bringing claims against a design-build contractor to recover for design and construction defects in a resort and casino constructed on the reservation.  The case was filed in Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County.

Peabody Coal Company V. Navajo Nation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Counsel for the Navajo Nation in arbitration and litigation relating to a royalty dispute arising from a major coal mining operation on Navajo land.  Court of Appeals affirmed that federal courts had no jurisdiction over Peabody's royalty claim. 373 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2004)

Klamath Tribes Of Oregon, Et Al. V. Pacificorp

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
Obtained summary judgment in favor of PacifiCorp against claims that plaintiffs suffered over $1 billion in damages because of harm to salmon fishery caused by dams on the Klamath River; the case was affirmed on appeal.

Federal Acknowledgment Of Indian Tribes

Represented a school, a local business council and a town in Connecticut, successfully defeating three well-funded petitioners seeking to open large-scale casinos by obtaining federal acknowledgement of new Indian tribes.

Delaware Nation V. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Defended the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania against a land claim by the Delaware Nation based on the Indian Intercourse Act and federal common law.  The tribe claimed that it was entitled to a parcel of land that it alleged had been sold without federal approval.  The court decision we won affirmed that the land had been validly transferred, that the commonwealth had not violated federal law and that the commonwealth’s exercise of jurisdiction over the land was sound.

Connecticut V. Babbitt

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Represented three Connecticut towns in administrative review, litigation and negotiation to prevent the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe from expanding trust land for gaming-related purposes.

Clark County V. Salazar

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Challenged the Secretary of the Interior’s decision to acquire land in trust for the Cowlitz Indian Tribe for a casino-resort on behalf of citizen groups and local businesses.  The court ordered the secretary to rescind the trust decision after we proved that the Bureau of Indian Affairs made an arbitrary and capricious decision to designate the land as an initial reservation eligible for gaming.  The secretary subsequently issued a new decision with a new rationale, and a second phase of litigation followed.  The second case raises challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act, Indian Reorganization Act, Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and National Environmental Policy Act.  In addition, the case has tested what constitutes a tribe under the U.S. Supreme Court decision Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009). 

Cd-5 Oil & Gas Development Dispute By Arctic Slope Regional Corporation

Representing the mineral estate owner ASRC in federal court litigation concerning a challenge to ConocoPhillips’ proposed development of the CD-5 oil and gas field in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.  A motion by the plaintiffs to enjoin the project was denied, and the case is ongoing.  We also represent ASRC on a wide range of other issues, including Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act rights and environmental compliance.  ASRC, headquartered in Barrow, Alaska, is a for-profit corporation with nearly 11,000 Alaska Native shareholders primarily of Iñupiat Eskimo descent.