Huffman, Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Reaffirm Tribal Trust Land Agreements

Huffman, Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Reaffirm Tribal Trust Land Agreements

Washington, D.C. - Representatives Jared Huffman (D-CA), Tom Cole (R-OK), Betty McCollum (D-MN), and Mike Rogers (R-AL) introduced H.R. 5257, the Tribal Trust Land Reaffirmation Act. This legislation would address the Supreme Court's 2009 Carcieri v. Salazar decision by reaffirming that all current land put into trust on behalf of a federally recognized tribe by the Department of the Interior (DOI) is officially reaffirmed as trust land.

After introducing the legislation, the members of Congress released the following statements:

"All federally recognized tribes deserve to have equal access to economic development opportunities that come with taking land into trust. The disastrous Carcieri decision threw a wrench into this system, pitting tribes against each other and creating a never-ending spiral of litigation," said Representative Huffman. "I'm glad be working alongside Rep. Cole, my colleagues, and our many tribal partners to right this wrong, and we won't stop until this bill becomes law."

"This decision has caused uncertainty and resulted in heavy legal and administrative burdens for tribes and the federal government, putting millions of dollars' worth of trust land in legal limbo," said Representative Cole. "The Tribal Trust Land Reaffirmation Act will help alleviate this egregious wrongdoing and restore stability for federally recognized tribes that have land in trust. I am thankful to my good friends and allies to Indian country, Reps. McCollum, Rogers, and Huffman, for their collaboration on this legislation and continued efforts to right this wrong."

"All federally recognized Tribal Nations deserve the assurance that land they have had placed into trust will be honored. Trust land is vital for Tribes to restore their homelands and to meet their communities' needs for housing, healthcare infrastructure, agriculture, and other resources," said Representative McCollum. "The Tribal Trust Land Reaffirmation Act will strengthen self-governance by removing the threat and burden of lawsuits that have challenged the trust land of tribes recognized after 1934. Congress must honor our federal trust and treaty responsibilities by passing this legislation to reaffirm the legitimacy of all land placed into trust for all tribal nations."

"I am proud to join my friend and colleague, Chairman Tom Cole, in introducing this legislation," said Representative Rogers. "These lands are currently in a state of legal flux, and passage of the Tribal Trust Land Reaffirmation Act will bring needed certainty to our tribes."

Background:

As a result of the Indian Removal Act signed into law by President Andrew Jackson in 1830, many Native American Tribes were forcibly removed from their land and relocated to unknown areas that provided them with little to no opportunity to prosper.

Then, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, Congress authorized placing tribal lands into trust with the federal government. On the contrary to the unknown lands, trust lands offered Tribes the ability to rebuild their communities by expanding economic opportunities and provide for their fellow Tribal members. For example, Tribal communities often use trust lands to produce energy, grow crops, build schools, housing, and hospitals for their communities, and more. Additionally, trust land gives Tribes access to certain tax credits and contracting opportunities that generate public and private partnerships that lead to increased jobs and services for both Tribal and non-Tribal communities. In fact, Tribal nations are often the largest employers and health service providers in their areas.

Yet, unfortunately, in Carcieri v. Salazar in 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of the Interior's authority to take land into trust is limited to only those tribes "under federal jurisdiction" as of 1934, the year Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA). This decision upended 75 years of federal precedent, causing damaging consequences for Tribes, as it created two different classes of Indian Tribes: those that can have land in trust and those that cannot. An unfortunate result of this decision stemmed opportunities for litigation to be brought against Tribes challenging the legitimacy of their trust land. This has resulted in heavy legal and administrative burdens for both Tribes and the federal government.

###

• Print
• Email
• Tweet