Chapter 3 Indian Land and Property: Title and Use
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

14 P.84, n.37. Add the following to the end of the footnote: Other parts of the Act complete ANCSA’s land allocations, id. at 549, and otherwise implement as well as “cleanup” ANCSA. Stratman v. Leisnoi, Inc., 545 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2861 (2009). P.84, n.38. Add the following to the third-to-last line before the semi-colon: , appeal dismissed on mootness grounds, Stratman v. Leisnoi, Inc., 545 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2861 (2009); P.86, n.52. Add the following to line 8 of the footnote after “see generally”: Ezra Rosser, Protecting Non-Indians from Harm? The Property Consequences of Indians, 87 Or. L. Rev. 175, 218–19 (2008) (arguing that Sherrill as predicated in part on “the Court’s assumptions regarding border towns and checkerboard areas” and their harmful effect on neighboring property owners, and criticizing these assumptions as predicated on “empirics” not susceptible to ready determination and, in any event, does not constitute “an adequate rationale for negating Indian sovereignty over reacquired land” given the “ ‘fundamental questions of historical justice and responsibility’ ” land claims); P.87, n.56. Add the following to the last line before the period: ; Pueblo De San Ildefonso Claims Settlement Act of 2006, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1780–1780p P.90, n.81. Add the following to line 1 before the semi-colon: , rev’d on other grounds, 129 S. Ct. 1058 (2009) Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: ; Mich. Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne, 525 F.3d 23, 39 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Brown, J., dissenting) (describing the consequences of taking land into trust as “far-reaching” and “profound”), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1002 (2009) Chapter 3 Indian Land and Property: Title and Use 15 Indian Land and Property: Title and Use P.91, n.89. Add the following in the third to last line before the semi-colon: , rev’d on other grounds, 129 S. Ct. 1058 (2009) Add the following to line 3 of the footnote before the period: ; but see Mahnomen County v. BIA, 604 F. Supp. 2d 1252, 1259 (D. Minn. 2009) (Part 151’s notice and comment procedures did not apply where settlement act “clearly and unequivocally creates a mandatory trust acquisition where land acquired by the [tribe] is located within [its] Reservation and was acquired with [settlement] funds”) Add the following to line 4 of the footnote after the period: Mich. Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne, 525 F.3d 23, 30–33 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1002 (2009); Delete the following from line 6 of the footnote: Mich. Gambling Opposition v. Norton, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1, 20–22 (D.D.C. 2007); P.91, n.90. Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: cf. Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes v. United States, 558 F.3d 592, 596 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (district court did not deny discretion in denying discovery request related to when Quiet Title Act’s limitation period commenced to run, since tribes “failed to specify how the requested discovery would alter the court’s determination that the statute of limitations had long since run and extinguished their claim”) P.91. Add the following new paragraph after the carryover paragraph: Congress has also directed the Secretary to take land into trust under legislation granting or acknowledging tribal status to groups of Indians. For varied reasons, such groups lacked formal federal recognition as tribes.90.1 These recognition laws commonly contain provisions that enable the newlyrecognized tribe to convey land to the federal government to be held under trust status and that give such land reservation status.90.2 90.1. See chapter 2, part II(A) (discussing the federal recognition process). 90.2. E.g., 25 U.S.C. §§ 1300h-5 (Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa ) and 1300n-3 (Graton Rancheria). 16 2009 Supplement—American Indian Law Deskbook, Fourth Edition P.93, n.102. Add the following to line 1 of the footnote before the period: ; see also Yellowbear v. State, 174 P.3d 1270, 1278–82 (Wyo. 2008) (reviewing Supreme Court decisions on reservation diminishment) P.94, n.106. Add the following to the beginning of the footnote: Wisconsin v. Stockbridge-Munsee Cmty., 554 F.3d 657, 664–65 (7th Cir. 2009); Replace “(9th Cir. 1987)” in line 2 of the footnote with “(8th Cir. 1987...


pdf