WPC ,SlЌP'>ap#k/XO'OFCcjM/=F ߇eX-ו;h9}43u[vG)SDwV6N<|bC` Բc~d`bUXKbmT[t{Ry4.mXWmЏߛuZoIHh>-ݳ{#`bR\QgBOquCtWi[x%32trh|+, @C9fˣFtflf`KS05_Sͱ>fubj*b궅s}̆| OٲkÔ QQ&?&0%bex#nv) 켆Xc8iԌ"yc$K䜍6K1hg]}>pMJP,CysC6bBR˿ \# % U8 0G U:V 0 U@8 nTx N ^ w 4   m N E f a ^4 UB b U> 0DU F^UM6jWUN%&' *rt5\9B>:B B?DI\DEFRJtXXdd= ` In"anabundanceofcaution,"werecognizedthatthe  Tribemaystillpossesssomeautonomyinlocalgovernmentmatters  suchasmembershiprules,inheritancerules,andregulationof \ domesticrelations.NarragansettIII,449F.3dat26.<6X9`(Courier New  A$XXXX      21    _=>tXXdd= ` Forthepurposeof25C.F.R.part151,landisconsidered  tobeonreservationifitis"locatedwithinorcontiguoustoan  Indianreservation,"25C.F.R.151.10,andoffreservationwhere \ "thelandislocatedoutsideofandnoncontiguoustothetribe's 2 reservation,"id.151.11.TheStatechallengesthefindingby X theBIAandthedistrictcourtthattheParcelisadjacenttothe . settlementlands,yetrecognizesthatthisdeterminationis   insignificanttotheapplicationofeithersectioninthiscase,as   thesectionsdifferonlyslightly.Compareid.151.10,withid. `  151.11.TheParcelisadjacenttotheSettlementLands,but 6   separatedfromthembyatownroad.NarragansettII,89F.3dat  \  911.  A$XXXX      4    _=>tXXdd= ` TheHousingAuthoritywasadulyrecognizedIndian  housingauthorityandwasgivenHUDfundstofinancethepurchase  ofthepropertyandtheconstructionofapproximately50unitsof \ housing.SeeIndianHousingActof1988,42U.S.C.1437aa 2 1437ff(repealedbyNativeAmericanHousingAssistanceandSelf X DeterminationActof1996,25U.S.C.41014243). .    ` Thedistrictcourtfoundtheproposedhousingproject   couldbedetrimentaltocoastalandgroundwaterresources,butalso   heldthattheParcelwasa"dependentIndiancommunity"withinthe `  meaningof18U.S.C.1151(b)andthereforepartiallydenied 6   injunctiverelief.NarragansettElec.Co.,878F.Supp.at35557,  \  366.Onappeal,thiscourtheldthatthelandforthehousing  2  projectwasnota"dependentIndiancommunity"becausefederal   ownershipofthelandandfederalactionto"setaside"theland   werelacking.NarragansettII,89F.3dat92122.Thus,the d  ParcelcouldnotbeconsideredIndiancountryunder18U.S.C. :  1151(b),andthehousingprojectbeingconstructedonthesite `  wasnotexemptfromstateandlocalbuildingandzoning 6 restrictions.Accordingly,thiscourtreversedthedistrictcourt   anddirectedthedistrictcourttoenteranordergrantingthe  injunction.89F.3dat922. ` A$XXXX      7    _=>tXXdd=Ӏ ` WerejecttwoadditionalargumentsofferedbytheState.  First,itisnotsignificantthat25U.S.C.478requiredtribes  tooptoutoftheIRAbyafixeddate,ratherthanonethat \ dependedonthedateofrecognition. Ingeneral,itisdifficult 2 toseewhyanytribewouldoptoutofastatutedesignedtobenefit X it,andthelegislativehistorysuggeststhattheprovisionwasa . legacyfromearlierdraftsofthebillthatimposeddutieson   tribesinreturnforthebenefits.SeeHearingonS.2755and   S.3645,supra,at262.Aseventuallypassed,theonlypotential `  purposeoftheelectionwastoprotecttherightsofthosethat 6   preferredtheallotmentsystem,anissuenotrelevanttotribes  \  recognizedafter1934.  2     ` Second,wehesitatetoattachmuchweighttothefact   thatlaterCongresseshaveexplicitlyprovidedfortheIRAtoapply   tonewlyrecognizedtribes. AstheSupremeCourthasrecently d   cautionedagain,theviewsoflaterCongressescarrylittleweight  indeterminingtheintentoftheCongressthatenactedthestatute  inquestion.SeeMassachusettsv.EPA,127S.Ct.1438,1460& \ n.27(2007).Forthesamereason,wedonottakelaterenactments 2 suchasthe1994amendmentstosection476toestablishthat X Congressintendedtomakenodistinctionsamongtribesin1934. .  Thepartieshavenotpointedustocontemporaneouslegislationthat   shedsfurtherlightontheissue.(A Z6Times New Roman Regular  A$XXXX      8    _=>tXXdd= ` Onedifficultyarisesfromthefactthatthereseemsto  benocomprehensivelistoftribesthatwererecognizedandunder  federaljurisdictionasofJune18,1934.  A$XXXX      5    _=>tXXdd= ` TheIBIArejectedtheState'sinsistencethatthe  SecretarytakeaccountofthepotentialuseoftheParcelfor  gamingpurposesundertheIndianGamingRegulatoryAct,25U.S.C. \ 2701,callingsuchapossibilitymerelyspeculative.35I.B.I.A. 2 at103.TheIBIAalsoconcludedthattherehadbeennoviolation X oftheCoastalZoneManagementAct,16U.S.C.1451.35I.B.I.A. . at103. A$XXXX      10    _=>tXXdd= ` IndianamicialsosubmittedopinionsoftheSolicitorof  theDepartmentoftheInteriordiscussingvarioustribes  eligibilitytoorganizeundertheIRAasevidencethatthe \ Secretaryhasconsistentlyinterpreted nowinsection479tomean 2  today.TheStatesattempttodistinguishtheseopinionsis X unsuccessful.Forexample,indiscussingtheIRAeligibilityof . theSt.CroixIndiansofWisconsin,theSolicitormakesnomention   whatsoeverofthetribesstatusasof1934.SolicitorsOpinion,   Jan.29,1941,1Op.Sol.onIndianAffairs1026(1979).TheState `  arguesthatitisclearfromcontextthatthetribewasnot 6   recognizedasof1934.Yet,althoughthisistrue,theSolicitor  \  discussesthefactthatthetribehasneverhadaseparatetribal  2  status,andthatuntilitdoesso,onlythoseIndianswhomeetthe   half-bloodtestareeligibletoorganizeundertheIRA.Id.at   1027.Moreover,contrarytotheStatesposition,theSolicitors d  opinionindicatesthatifthetribetakescertainsteps,itmay :  laterbecomeeligibletoorganizeundertheIRAasarecognized `  band.Id. 6    ` Similarly,indiscussingtheNahmaandBeaverIsland    IndianseligibilitytoorganizeundertheIRA,theSolicitor  discussesthetribeshistoricalstatus,butthencontinuesto  discussitsthen-currentsituation.SolicitorsOpinion,May31, \ 1937,1Op.Sol.onIndianAffairs747,747-48(1979).Ifthe 2 Solicitorhadbeenconcernedonlywiththetribesstatusasof X 1934,therewouldhavebeennoreasonforhimtohaveconsidered . the"recent...attitudeoftheInteriorDepartmentontheband   status"oftheNahmaandBeaverIndians,norforhimtostatethat   itwas"outofthequestiontoestablishanyexistingbandstatus" `  beforeconcludingthattheIndianswereeligiblefororganization 6   onlyundertheIRA'shalf-bloodprovision.Id.at748. h A$XXXX      9    _=>tXXdd= ` TheSecretary'sinterpretationalsoisconsistentwith  regulationsinterpretingandimplementingotherfederalstatutes  establishingIndianprogramsandservices.Forexample,the \ applicabilityoftheIndianChildWelfareAct,25U.S.C.1901 2 1963,theapplicabilityofminimumstandardsforbasiceducationof X IndianchildreninschoolsoperatedbytheBIA,id.2001,and . eligibilityforIndianfinancialassistanceandsocialservices   programs,id.13,allaredefinedintermsofcurrentfederal   recognition.See25C.F.R.X%XXX XX%Ԁ#g#  ##XX g##23.2;id.36.3;id.20.100. R A$XXXX      11    _=>tXXdd=Ӏ ` Noristhiscasecontrolledbyourenbancdecisionin  NarragansettIII.ThatcaseconcernedtheState'sjurisdiction  overthesettlementlands,see449F.3dat20,andhasnobearing \ onwhethertheSettlementActabrogatestheSecretary'strust 2 authorityoutsideofthesettlementlands.Similarly,cases X holdingthatsection1708(a)survivedfederalrecognitionandthe . conveyanceofthesettlementlandstofederaltrustareofnohelp   totheState,sincesection1708(a)refersonlytothesettlement   lands.SeeNarragansettIndianTribev.Nat'lIndianGaming `  Comm'n,158F.3d1335,134142(D.C.Cir.1998);NarragansettI,19 6   F.3dat69495.  A$XXXX      12    _=>tXXdd=Ӏ ` TheStateaddsnothingtoitsargumentbyalsostylingit  asanissueofclaimpreclusion. Obviously,theearlierlitigation  thatresultedintheSettlementActcouldnothaveresolvedthe \ questionraisedinthiscaseofwhethertheSettlementAct 2 restrictstheSecretary'strustauthorityundertheIRA.By X invoking"principlesofresjudicata,"theStatemeansnothingmore . thanthattheTribeshouldbeheldtothesettlementtowhichit   previouslyagreed. WhatpreciselytheTribeagreedtointhe   settlementis,ofcourse,thequestionweareaddressing. 0 A$XXXX      13    _=>tXXdd=Ӏ ` Section1705appliestotheNarragansettTribeandany  landinCharlestown,RhodeIsland.Section1712appliestoland  elsewhereinRhodeIslandtransferredbyotherIndiantribes.The \ relevantprovisionsineacharemateriallythesameforour 2 purposeshere. d ? A$XXXX      14    _=>tXXdd=Ӏ ` Weattachlittlesignificancetothefactthatthe  MashantucketSettlementActexplicitlyauthorizestrust  acquisition,whiletheRhodeIslandSettlementActdoesnot.The \ former,unlikethelatter,grantedfederalrecognitiontothe 2 tribe.See25U.S.C.1758(a). ; A$XXXX      15    _=>tXXdd=Ӏ ` WedonotaccepttheState'scomparisonoftheRhode  IslandSettlementActtotheAlaskaNativeClaimsSettlementAct  (ANCSA),43U.S.C.16011629h,andtheresultingsuggestionthat \ trustacquisitionwouldbeasinappropriateinRhodeIslandasit 2 purportedlywouldbeinAlaska.ANCSAeliminatedpreviously X existingIndiancountryinAlaska.SeeNativeVill.ofVenetie, . 522U.S.at53234.Evenifonemightinferfromthatelimination   anintenttoprecludelatertrustacquisitions,nosuchintentcan   beinferredfromtheRhodeIslandSettlementAct'sfailureto `  affirmativelyestablishIndiancountryforanasyetunrecognized 6   tribe. H A$XXXX      16    _=>tXXdd=ӀTheStatehasnotcitedanylegislativehistorythatmight  leadustointerpretthetextdifferently.  A$XXXX      20    _=>tXXdd= ` Amicistatesargue thatlegislativehistoryshouldnot  factorintotheintelligibleprincipleanalysis.Wenotesimply  thattheSupremeCourtinMistrettareferredtolegislativehistory \ inexplainingthattheSentencingReformActof1984wasnotan 2 unconstitutionaldelegationoflegislativeauthority.See488U.S. X at375n.9,376n.10. 7 A$XXXX      18    _=>tXXdd=Ӏ ` TheSecretarytakesthepositionthathehasnoauthority  toimposerestrictionsonlandtakenintotrustundertheIRA,  absentastatutorydirectiveimposingsuchrestrictions.Wedonot \ reachthisissue.TotheextentthattheStatearguesthatthe 2 SettlementActitselfissuchastatutorydirectiverequiringa X restrictedtrust,werejectthatargumentforthesamereasonsthat . wefoundthattheSettlementActdoesnoteliminatetrustauthority   altogether. B A$XXXX      19    _=>tXXdd= ` Insoholding,theEighthCircuitagreedwiththeTenth  Circuit'sdecisioninUnitedStatesv.Roberts,185F.3d1125(10th  Cir.1999),whichheldthatsection465containsstandards \ sufficienttoguidetheSecretary'sexerciseofdiscretion.Id.at 2 1137.  A$XXXX      17    _=>tXXdd=Ӏ ` TherearealsootherexamplesofCongress'simposing  explicitconditionsonthetakingoflandintotrust,forexample,  bylimitingthenumberofacresoflandandthenumberofacrefeet \ ofwaterrights.SeeNevadav.UnitedStates,221F.Supp.2d 2 1241,1244(D.Nev.2002)(discussingsection103(A)oftheFallon X PaiuteShoshoneIndianTribeWaterRightsSettlementActof1990, . Pub.L.No.101618,104Stat.3289,3291).  A$XXXX      24    _=>tXXdd= ` Specifically,16U.S.C.1456(c)provides,inrelevant  part:     (1)(A)EachFederalagencyactivity 2 withinoroutsidethecoastalzonethat X affectsanylandorwateruseornatural . resourceofthecoastalzoneshallbe   carriedoutinamannerwhichis   consistenttothemaximumextent `  practicablewiththeenforceablepolicies 6   ofapprovedStatemanagementprograms.A  \  Federalagencyactivityshallbesubject  2  tothisparagraphunlessitissubjectto   paragraph(2)or(3).   .... :  (C)EachFederalagencycarryingoutan 6 activitysubjecttoparagraph(1)shall   provideaconsistencydeterminationto  therelevantStateagency.... h (2)AnyFederalagencywhichshall d undertakeanydevelopmentprojectinthe : coastalzoneofastateshallinsurethat  theprojectis,tothemaximumextent  practicable,consistentwiththe l enforceablepoliciesofapprovedState B managementprograms. h  f X D  A$XXXX      22    _=>tXXdd= ` Thosefactorsinclude:     (a)Theexistenceofstatutoryauthority \ fortheacquisitionandanylimitations 2  containedinsuchauthority;       ( (b)TheneedoftheindividualIndianor \ thetribeforadditionalland; 2 (c)Thepurposesforwhichthelandwill . beused;   ... `  (e)Ifthelandtobeacquiredisin  \  unrestrictedfeestatus,theimpacton  2  theStateanditspoliticalsubdivisions   resultingfromtheremovaloftheland   fromthetaxrolls; d  (f)Jurisdictionalproblemsandpotential `  conflictsoflandusewhichmayarise; 6 and   (g)Ifthelandtobeacquiredisinfee h status,whethertheBureauofIndian > Affairsisequippedtodischargethe d additionalresponsibilitiesresulting : fromtheacquisitionofthelandintrust  status.  .... B  D $ 25C.F.R.151.10.  A$XXXX      *    _ ` DefendantGaleA.NortonhasbeensubstitutedwithDirk  Kempthorne.SeeFed.R.App.P.43(c)(2). % A$XXXX      6    _=>tXXdd= ` Atoralargument,theSecretaryindicatedthatalthough  atribehascivilregulatoryjurisdictionoverlandstakeninto  trust,astatemayseektoenforceitslawstotheextentthey \ arenotpreemptedbyfederallawontrustlandseitherby 2 agreementwiththetribeorbyseekingadeterminationinfederal X courtthattheState'sinterestswithrespecttoenforcinga . particularregulationoutweightheinterestsofthetribeandthe   federalgovernmentinfosteringtribalself-government.SeeHicks,   533U.S.at362("When...stateinterestsoutsidethe `  reservationareimplicated,States[sometimes]mayregulatethe 6   activitiesevenoftribemembersontriballand.");seealsoid.at  \  364(holdingthatstateofficersmayexecuteontriballands  2  processrelatedtooff-reservationviolationsofstatelaw);    ConfederatedTribes,447U.S.at151(explainingthatthestate  couldrequireIndiantribestocollecttaxesonsalesofcigarettes  tonon-Indians).Thatissueisbeyondthescopeofthisopinion. CARCIERICHARLESTOWNKEMPTHORNE LisiBoudinSelyaColletteColletecuraie F.X.PryorRenkesWasdenPhillStenehjemGuhinShurtleffSansonettiBossertRabinowitzShiltonKenworthyGershengorn LLPDossettRiyazKatzen PLLCLabinAkiakCahtoLaytonvilleRancheriaCoeurd'AleneKootenaiPequotFallonMcDermittChippewaInupiatKenaitzeKickapooCourteOreillesLovelockLummiMoapaModocNarragansettVenetie NezPotawatamiSissetonWahpetonOyateSuquamishTanana MoakTuolumne WukWashoeYombaOglalaVanAmberg YepaHobbsMescalero VillGov'tw]henBrackerC.F.R.NarragansettsD.R.I. Nonintercourse JMOU M.J.Sheppard IBIAI.B.I.A.f]ederal I]fRuckerreenactmentDiffordSec'yServshav[ingKahawaiolaaRossiterLevalN.Y.U.O'MahoneydefinitionalMiccosukeeNatlCommnIgnaceD.D.C.c[a]meNat'lTelecommsAss'nMancariA]bsent T]oSherrillMashantucketduplicativeANCSAsubchapterDep'tBroadleyMashpeeHosps T]heHerreraInirioLeavenworthp]rimaryCoyleNondelegation a]llt]hereinMistretta decisionmakinglay[sAss'ns J.W.curiam"rehabilitati[ondevelop[ment c]ongressionalSiletzYakus MfrsOvertonVolpe CEQ EISComm'np]reparemake[stake[s CZMARICZMP CRMC IGRARuidosoVenemanRagland edsTalisColbergPassamaquoddyNarrangansettdraftmanship- - 2 A$XXXX      25    _ ` Idonotchallengethemajority'sconclusionthattheBIA  maytaketheParcelintotrust,astheStatepreviouslypermitted  theNarragansettstotaketheSettlementLandsintotrustin1988. \ Butanynewtrustlandsmustalsobeexplicitlymadesubjecttothe 2 State'scriminalandcivillaws. X     A$XXXX      23    _=>tXXdd= ` Thecriteriatobeconsideredpursuantto  section151.11(b)areasfollows:     Thelocationofthelandrelativeto 2 stateboundaries,anditsdistancefrom X theboundariesofthetribe's .  reservation,shallbeconsideredas  follows:asthedistancebetweenthe  tribe'sreservationandthelandtobe \ acquiredincreases,theSecretaryshall 2 givegreaterscrutinytothetribe's X justificationofanticipatedbenefits . fromtheacquisition....    q c O25C.F.R.151.11(b). S A$XXXX      26    _ ` Indeed,theverybreadthofthelanguageindicatesmore  wascontemplatedbythepartiesthanmerelyresolvinganimmediate  disputeovertitle.  A$XXXX      27    _ ` TheTribewouldstillhavetheoptionofobtainingthe  State'sconsenttomakecertainIndianlandclaimssuchasthe  1988placementofthesettlementlandsintrust(subjecttoRhode \ Islandlaw)withtheBIA.  A$XXXX      28    _ ` XXXXTheTribe'srecognitionbytheBIAchangedlittle,as  thiscourthasheldthatthejurisdictionalgranttotheStatein  theSettlementActsurvivedsuchrecognition.SeeNarragansett \ IndianTribe,19F.3dat69495.#XXXX#  A$XXXX      29    _ ` InextinguishingtheTribe'saboriginaltitleinthe  SettlementAct,CongresswasinspiredbytheAlaskaNativeClaims  SettlementAct("ANCSA").SeeH.R.Rep.951453,at1951.As \ notedbytheSupremeCourt,theANCSAsoughttoaccomplishthis 2 goal"withoutcreatingareservationsystemorlengthywardshipor X trusteeship."Alaskav.NativeVillageofVenetieTribalGovt.,522 . U.S.520,524(1998)(internalcitationandquotationomitted)..Courier New Regular  A$XXXX      1    _=>tXXdd= ` XXXXBycontrast,theIndianGamingRegulatoryActprovides  theStatewithalimitedroleindeterminingwhetherlandistaken  intotrustforgamingpurposes.#XXXX#XXXXSee#XXXX#XXXXԀ25U.S.C.#XXXX)#XXXX#XXXXv#XXXX2719(b)(1)(A).#XXXX# + A$XXXX      2    _=>tXXdd= ` XXXXTheState'schallengestotheSecretary'sauthorityunder  theIRAandtheConstitutionhavenationalimplicationsthatreach  beyondRhodeIsland;accordingly,tenstatesandtheNational \ CoalitionAgainstGamblingExpansionhavefiledamicusbriefsin 2 supportofRhodeIsland.Similarly,numeroustribesandtribal X organizationshavefiledamicusbriefsinsupportoftheSecretary. . Weacknowledgetheableassistanceprovidedbytheamicicuriae   statesandNationalCoalitionAgainstGamblingExpansiononbehalf   oftheState#XXXX#XXXX,andamicicuriaeNationalCongressofAmerican `  Indians,individualIndiantribesandtribalorganizations,andthe 6   MississippiBandofChoctawIndiansonbehalfoftheSecretary#XXXX#XXXX.#XXXX# !XXXX  _TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * !     X%XXXf%XX%UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#X%Xf%#   XX%FortheFirstCircuit#X%X x# #XXXX%#  A') ` dE< ` A   No.032647 K    @@(( DONALDL.CARCIERI,inhiscapacityasGovernoroftheStateof  G  RhodeIsland;STATEOFRHODEISLANDANDPROVIDENCEPLANTATIONS,a    sovereignStateoftheUnitedStates;TOWNOFCHARLESTOWN,RHODE   ISLAND, y  @Plaintiffs,Appellants, %u  @tt)v. !   @@(( DIRKKEMPTHORNE,1 #  *      ׀inhiscapacityasSecretaryoftheDepartment } oftheInterior,UnitedStates;FRANKLINKEEL,inhiscapacityas S EasternAreaDirectoroftheBureauofIndianAffairs,withinthe )y DepartmentofInterior,UnitedStates, O J@Defendants,Appellees.  A') ` dE<V` A W @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT <   FORTHEDISTRICTOFRHODEISLAND b @@*[Hon.MaryM.Lisi,U.S.DistrictJudge]  A') ` dE<i` A j  @@'Before O " @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge, !K$ Torruella,CircuitJudge, "!% Selya,SeniorCircuitJudge, #& Lynch,Lipez,andHoward,CircuitJudges. }$' A') ` dE<(&` A )&y!)     ClaireRichards,SpecialCounsel,forappellantDonaldL. '^"+ Carcieri. '4#,   StephenP.ColletteandStephenP.Collette&Associateson ( $- briefforNationalCoalitionAgainstGamblingExpansion,amicus )$. curiae. f*%/?   NeilF.X.Kelly,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,withwhomPatrick  C.Lynch,AttorneyGeneral,wasonbrief,forappellantStateof  RhodeIsland. \   TroyKing,AttorneyGeneralfortheStateofAlabama,TalisJ. 2 Colberg,AttorneyGeneralfortheStateofAlaska,Richard X Blumenthal,AttorneyGeneralfortheStateofConnecticut,Susan . QuinnCobb,AssistantAttorneyGeneralfortheStateof   Connecticut,LawrenceG.Wasden,AttorneyGeneralfortheStateof   Idaho,PaulJ.Morrison,AttorneyGeneralfortheStateofKansas, `  JeremiahW.(Jay)Nixon,AttorneyGeneralfortheStateof 6   Missouri,WayneStenehjem,AttorneyGeneralfortheStateofNorth  \  Dakota,LarryLong,AttorneyGeneralfortheStateofSouthDakota,  2  JohnP.Guhin,AssistantAttorneyGeneralfortheStateofSouth   Dakota,MarkL.Shurtleff,AttorneyGeneralfortheStateofUtah,   andWilliamH.Sorrell,AttorneyGeneralfortheStateofVermont, d  onbrieffortheStatesofAlabama,Alaska,Connecticut,Idaho, :  Kansas,Missouri,NorthDakota,SouthDakota,Utah,andVermont, `  amicicuriae. 6   JosephS.Larisa,Jr.,AssistantSolicitorforIndianAffairs,   forappellantTownofCharlestown.    ElizabethAnnPeterson,Attorney,EnvironmentandNatural h ResourcesDivision,UnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice,withwhom > ThomasL.Sansonetti,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,JeffreyBossert d ClarkandRyanD.Nelson,DeputyAssistantAttorneysGeneral, : WilliamB.Lazarus,JudithRabinowitz,andDavidC.Shilton,  Attorneys,EnvironmentandNaturalResourcesDivision,United  StatesDepartmentofJustice,andMaryAnneKenworthy,Officeof l theSolicitor,UnitedStatesDepartmentoftheInterior,wereon B brief,forappellees. h   IanHeathGershengorn,withwhomSamHirsch,Jenner&Block > LLP,JohnDossett,RiyazA.Kanji,Kanji&KatzenPLLC,Tracy  Labin,RichardGuest,andNativeAmericanRightsFundwereon  brief,forNationalCongressofAmericanIndians,AbsenteeShawnee p  Tribe,AkiakNativeCommunity,CahtoTribeoftheLaytonville F ! Rancheria,CheyenneRiverSiouxTribe,Coeurd'AleneTribe, !l" ConfederatedSalishandKootenaiTribesoftheFlatheadNation, !B# ConfederatedTribesoftheWarmSpringsReservationofOregon, "$ EasternPequotTribalNation,EasternShawneeTribeofOklahoma, #% ElyShoshoneTribe,FallonPaiuteShoshoneTribe,Ft.McDermitt t$& PaiuteShoshoneTribe,GrandTraverseBandofOttawaandChippewa J% ' Indians,InupiatCommunityofArcticSlope(IRA),KenaitzeIndian  &p!( Tribe,IRA,KickapooTribeinKansas,LacCourteOreillesBandof &F") LakeSuperiorChippewa,LovelockPaiuteTribe,LummiNation,Moapa '#* PaiuteBandoftheMoapaIndianReservation,ModocTribeof (#+ Oklahoma,NarragansettIndianTribeofRhodeIsland,NativeVillage x)$, ofVenetieIRATribalGovernment,NezPerceTribe,OglalaSioux N*%- Tribe,OneidaTribeofIndiansofWisconsin,PrairieBandof $+t&. PotawatamiNation,PuebloofLaguna,PuebloofSantaAna,Puebloof +J'/ Taos,SeminoleTribeofFlorida,ShoshonePaiuteTribesoftheDuck , (0 ValleyReservation,SissetonWahpetonOyateoftheLakeTraverse -(1 Reservation,St.RegisMohawkTribe,SuquamishTribe,TananaChiefs  Conference,TeMoakTribeofWesternShoshoneIndians,Tuolumne  BandofMeWukIndians,UnitedSouthandEasternTribes,Inc., \ WashoeTribeofNevadaandCalifornia,andYombaShoshoneTribe, 2 amicicuriae. X   C.BryantRogers,Roth,VanAmberg,Rogers,Ortiz&Yepa,LLP, . CharlesA.Hobbs,Hobbs,Straus,Dean&Walker,LLPonbrieffor   MississippiBandofChoctawIndians,amicuscuriae.   *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +   \  \  0&p   0ENBANCOPINION F  July20,2007 l   0&!B " 0(p   (* !   L   8>tXXdXXd8*,X` XX*XXXX=>tXXdd= `  LYNCH,CircuitJudge .#XXXX!#XXXXTheenbanccourthasconvenedto  consideraseriesofissuesconcerningtherelativepowersofthe x federalSecretaryoftheInterior,theStateofRhodeIsland,and $t theNarragansettTribeoveraparceloflandtakenintotrustand   designatedforIndianhousing.Thecaseisinmanywaysaproxy |  fortheState'slargerconcernsaboutitssovereigntyvis#XXXXj"#XXXX#XXXXs$#XXXXԄvis ( x  federalandtribalcontroloverlandswithinthestate.#XXXX$# $   ` XXXXIn1998,theSecretaryoftheInterioragreedtotake   intounreservedtrustfortheTribe'sbenefita31or32acre ,|  parcelinCharlestown,RhodeIsland(theParcel).ThenSecretary ( GaleNortoncitedherpowersundersection5oftheIndian  ReorganizationActof1934(IRA),25U.S.C.#XXXXi%#XXXX#XXXX'#XXXX465.TheTribehad 0 purchasedtheParcelin1991.#XXXX`'# ,  ` XXXXUndertheIndianCommerceClauseoftheConstitution,  U.S.Const.art.I,#XXXX(#XXXX#XXXX(#XXXX8,cl.3,Congresshasplenarypowerto 4 legislateonthesubjectofIndiantribes.#XXXX(#XXXXCottonPetroleumCorp.#XXXX)#XXXX 0 v.#XXXX)#XXXXNewMexico#XXXXT*#XXXX,490U.S.163,192(1989).#XXXX*#Asaresult,Congressmay   preempttheoperationofstatelawinIndiancountry.SeeNew 8!" Mexicov.MescaleroApacheTribe,462U.S.324,333(1983).XXXXUnder "4$ section5oftheIRA,CongresshasauthorizedtheSecretary"inhis $& discretion"toacquireandtakeintotrustforIndiantribes"any <&!( interestinlands...withinorwithoutexistingreservations '8#*  ...forthepurposeofprovidinglandforIndians."25U.S.C. )$, #XXXX+#XXXX#XXXX-#XXXX465.TheSecretarymaytakelandintotrustforthesepurposes,  aswasdonehere,withouttheconsentoftheState.Q #  1      #XXXX-#XXXXԀ \   ` TheSecretary'sacquisitionoflandintotrustfor X Indiansresultsinthelandbecoming"Indiancountry."18U.S.C.   1151.Generallyspeaking,primaryjurisdictionoverlandthatis `  IndiancountryrestswiththefederalgovernmentandtheIndian  \  tribeinhabitingit,notwiththestate.Alaskav.NativeVill.of   VenetieTribalGov't,522U.S.520,527n.1(1988)#XXXX.#XXXX.Tobemore d  precise, `     "[w]henonreservationconductinvolvingonly   Indiansisatissue,statelawisgenerally  inapplicable,fortheState'sregulatory h interestislikelytobeminimalandthe > federalinterestinencouragingtribalself d governmentisatitsstrongest."When, : however,stateinterestsoutsidethe  reservationareimplicated,States[sometimes]  mayregulatetheactivitiesevenoftribe l membersontriballand....#XXXXI1#XXXX B  1 1 11Nevada#XXXXa4#XXXXԀv.#XXXX5#XXXXHicks#XXXX^5#XXXX,533U.S.353,362(2001)(citationomitted) > (quoting#XXXX5#XXXXWhiteMountainApacheTribe#XXXX86#XXXXԀv.#XXXX6#XXXXBracker#XXXX6#XXXX,448U.S.136,144  (1980)). F !  ` Recognizingaconflictbetweenstatejurisdictionandthe !B# federalinterestinencouragingtribalselfgovernance,the #% Secretary'sregulationsundertheIRAprovidethat"noneofthe J% ' laws...ofanyState...limiting,zoningorotherwise &F") governing,regulating,orcontrollingtheuseordevelopmentofany  realorpersonalproperty...shallbeapplicable"tolandheld \ intrustforatribebytheUnitedStates.25C.F.R.#XXXX-7#XXXX#XXXX9#XXXX1.4(a). X ThisprovisionissubjecttotheSecretary'spowerinspecific   casesorareastomakeapplicablethoselocallawsdeterminedtobe `  inthebestinterestoftheIndianowners"inachievingthehighest  \  andbestuseof[the]property."#XXXX/:#XXXXId.#XXXX;#XXXXԀ#XXXX;#XXXX#XXXXA<#XXXX1.4(b).#XXXX<#    ` XXXXConcernedoverthelossofsovereigntyovertheParcel d  andwhatitmayportendforthefuture,theState,itsGovernor, `  andthetownofCharlestown(collectively,theState),suedthe   SecretaryoftheInterior,nowDirkKempthorne,andtheRegional h DirectoroftheBureauofIndianAffairs(BIA),FranklinKeel,in d federalcourt.See#XXXX<#Carcieriv.Norton,290F.Supp.2d167(D.R.I.  2003)XXXX.Havingexhaustedadministrativeremedies,theStatebrought l suitundertheAdministrativeProcedureAct,5U.S.C.702, h seekingreviewoftheSecretary'sdecisiontotaketheParcelinto  trust.Id.at169,172.#XXXXB?# p   ` XXXXTheState'scaseassertsthreemajortheories.First, !l" theStatearguesthattheIRAdoesnotauthorizetheSecretaryto "$ takelandintotrustforanytribe,includingtheNarragansetts, t$& thatfirstreceivedfederalrecognitionafterJune18,1934,the  &p!( effectivedateoftheIRA.Second,theStatearguesthatthe1978 '#* RhodeIslandIndianClaimsSettlementAct(theSettlementAct),25 x)$, U.S.C.#XXXX@#XXXX#XXXXC#XXXX17011716,restrictstheSecretary'sauthoritytoplace $+t&. theParcelintotrustpursuanttotheIRA.Third,theStateargues  thattheConstitutionprohibitsthisexerciseofauthoritybythe \ Secretary.[ #  2      #XXXXNC# X  ` XXXXAstotheIRA,theStatearguesthattheNarragansettsdo   notmeetthedefinitionof"Indian"containedin25U.S.C.#XXXXE#XXXXԁ#XXXXE#XXXX479. `  Thepertinentdefinitionrecognizes,interalia,"allpersonsof  \  Indiandescentwho#XXXXF#XXXXare#XXXXF#XXXXԀmembersofanyrecognizedIndiantribe#XXXX/G#XXXXnow#XXXXG#XXXX   underFederaljurisdiction."#XXXXG#XXXX25U.S.C.#XXXX_H#XXXX#XXXXH#XXXXԁ#XXXXH#XXXX479#XXXX4I#XXXXԀ(emphasisadded). d  TheStatereads"aremembers...nowunderFederaljurisdiction" `  toplainlyandliterallymeanthe1934effectivedateoftheIRA.   TheStatethuscontendsthattheSecretaryhasnoauthorityunder h theIRAtotakelandintotrustforanytribethatwasnot d federallyrecognizedin1934.Asaresult,theStateargues,the  SecretaryisprecludedentirelyfromplacingtheParcelintotrust l fortheNarragansetts,whowerenotrecognizedasatribeuntil h 1983#XXXXyI#XXXX.#XXXX;L#   ` XXXXNext,theStatearguesthatthetermsoftheSettlement p  ActprecludetheSecretaryfromplacingtheParcelintotrust !l" becausetheSettlementActisalaterspecificactofCongressthat  mustbereadtohaveexplicitlyandimplicitlycabinedtheTribe's \ andtheSecretary'spowerastotheParcel.TheStatearguesthat X theSettlementActbarstheimpositionofanytrust.TheState's   fallbackpositionisthatanytrustmustberestrictedbytheterms `  oftheSettlementActsothatitisclearthatstateandlocallaw  \  applytotheParcel,justastheydotothesettlementlands.#XXXXL#Ԁ    ` XXXXFinally,theStateassertsvariousconstitutional d  theories,withthecommonunderpinningthattheplacingofthe `  ParcelintotrustviolatestheState'ssovereignty.TheState   arguesthattheIndianCommerceClausedoesnotauthorizethe h Secretary'sexerciseofpowerandthattheexerciseviolatesthe d TenthAmendment,aswellastheEnclaveandAdmissionsClausesof  theConstitution.TheStatealsoarguesthatsection5oftheIRA, l 25U.S.C.#XXXXO#XXXX#XXXXwR#XXXX465,constitutesanunconstitutionaldelegationof h legislativeauthority.#XXXXR#   ` XXXXWeholdthatthelanguageof25U.S.C.#XXXX~S#XXXX#XXXXS#XXXX479doesnot p  plainlyrefertothe1934enactmentdateoftheIRA.Wefindthat !l" thetextissufficientlyambiguousinitsuseoftheterm"now" "$ thattheSecretaryhas,underthe#XXXX.T#XXXXChevron#XXXXaU#XXXXԀdoctrine,authorityto t$& construetheAct.WerejecttheState'sclaimthatwedonotowe  &p!( deferencetotheSecretary'sinterpretationbecausehehas '#* inconsistentlyinterpretedorapplied#XXXXU#XXXXsection#XXXXV#XXXX479.TheState's x)$, evidenceofinconsistencyismixedandisnotpersuasive.The $+t&. Secretary'spositionhasnotbeeninconsistent,muchless  arbitrary.TheSecretary'sinterpretationisrationalandnot \ inconsistentwiththestatutorylanguageorlegislativehistory, X andmustbehonored.#XXXX0W#   Ѐ ` XXXXLikewise,theSettlementActneitherexplicitlybarsby `  itstermstheSecretary'sactions,norimplicitlyrepealsor  \  constrainstheSecretary'sauthorityundertheIRAtoplaceland   intotrustfortheTribe.WhiletheStateapparentlyfailedto d  anticipatethisparticularproblematthetimeofthesettlement, `  theSettlementActdidspecificallycontemplatetheeventof   federalrecognitionoftheTribeanddidnotrestrictthe h Secretary'spower,shouldtheTribeberecognized,totakeinto d trustlandoutsideofthesettlementlands.Wearenotfreeto  reformtheAct.Ifaggrieved,theStatemustturntoCongress.#XXXXY#Ԁ l Ѐ ` XXXXTheState'sargumentsbasedonallocationsofpowerunder h theU.S.Constitutionalsodonotprevail.Theydo,however,  underscoretheseriousnessoftheState'sconcernaboutthe p  abrogationofstatesovereigntyatstakehere. !l" #XXXX\#@tt)I. "$  ` Inordertounderstandthenatureofthecontroversyand t$& theconsequencesofthisdecision,abriefrecountingofthe  &p!( historyofrelationsbetweentheStateandtheTribeisrequired. '#* Furtherbackgroundcanbefoundinthedistrictcourt'sopinion, x)$, Carcieri,290F.Supp.2d167,aswellastheopinionspreviously $+t&. issuedinthedecadeslongdisputesbetweentheStateandthe  Tribe,seeNarragansettIndianTribev.RhodeIsland(Narragansett \ III),449F.3d16(1stCir.2006)(enbanc);NarragansettIndian X Tribev.NarragansettElec.Co.(NarragansettII),89F.3d908(1st   Cir.1996);RhodeIslandv.NarragansettIndianTribe(Narragansett `  I),19F.3d685(1stCir.1994).  \   ` In1880,theStateacquiredthemajorityoftheTribe's   lands.In1934,theTribeorganizedasastatechartered d  corporation.In1975,theTribesuedtorecoveritslands,arguing `  thattheStatehadacquiredthelandsinviolationoftheIndian   NonintercourseAct,25U.S.C.177.TheTribeclaimedthatthis h violationrenderedvoidthetransferoftitletothelands. d  ` ThiscloudontitlepromptedtheStatetoenterinto  settlementnegotiationswiththeTribe,whichledin1978toan l agreementembodiedinaJointMemorandumofUnderstanding(JMOU). h UndertheJMOU,theTribewouldreceive1800acresof"settlement  lands,"halfofwhichwereprovidedbytheStateandhalfofwhich p  werepurchasedwithfederalfunds.TheStateagreedtocreatean !l" Indiancontrolledcorporationtoholdthesettlementlandsintrust "$ fortheTribe,toexemptthesettlementlandsfromlocaltaxation, t$& andtohelpsecurethefederallegislationnecessarytoimplement  &p!( theagreement.Inexchange,theTribeabandoneditsclaimsof '#* aboriginaltitleanditsclaimstolandsinthestateotherthan x)$, thesettlementlands. $+t&.  ` Inturn,Congressapprovedandcodifiedtheagreementin  theSettlementAct.TheSettlementActprovidedthat"the \ settlementlandsshallbesubjecttothecivilandcriminallaws X andjurisdictionoftheStateofRhodeIsland."Id.1708(a).    ` Fiveyearslater,in1983,theSecretarygrantedthe `  Tribeofficialfederalrecognition.SeeFinalDeterminationfor  \  FederalAcknowledgmentofNarragansettIndianTribeofRhode   Island,48Fed.Reg.6177(Feb.10,1983).Followingthat d  recognition,in1985,RhodeIslandamendedthepertinentstate `  statutetopermittheconveyanceofthesettlementlandsdirectly   totheTribe,explicitlypreservingtheState'sjurisdictionover h thesettlementlands,consistentwiththeSettlementAct,25U.S.C. d 1708(a).SeeR.I.Gen.Laws371813(b).Theholdingcompany  conveyedthesettlementlandstotheTribe,andthreeyearslater, l theTribeconveyedthesettlementlandstotheBIAastrustee.The h trustdeedconfirmedtheapplicationofstatelawtothesettlement  lands,asprovidedin25U.S.C.1708(a).TheBIAcontinuesto p  holdthesettlementlandsintrustfortheTribe,subjecttothis !l" congressionallyenactedrestrictionthatstatelawapplies.See "$ NarragansettI,19F.3dat689,695n.8.Significantly,inour t$& earlierenbancdecisioninNarragansettIII,weheldthatthe  &p!(  languageofsection1708(a)trumpedanyresidualtribalsovereignty '#* overthesettlementlands,underwhichtheTribehadrefusedto  complywithcertainstatelaws. #  3      ׀See449F.3dat26. \   ` Then,in1991,thetribalhousingauthoritypurchasedthe X Parcelinfeesimple,acquiringtitlethroughpurchasefroma   privatedeveloper.TheParcelwaspartoftheTribe'saboriginal `  landsclaimedinthe1976lawsuit.UndertheSettlementAct,the  \  TribehadthusrelinquishedaboriginaltitletotheParcel,butthe   Parcelisnotpartofthe1800acresofsettlementlands.Itis d  adjacenttothesettlementlands,acrossatownroad.In1992,the `  HousingAuthoritytransferredtheParceltotheTribewithadeed   restrictionthattheParcelbeplacedintrustwiththeBIAforthe h purposeofprovidinghousing. d  ` Adisputesoonaroseoverwhetherdevelopmentofthe  Parcelhadtocomplywithlocallaw.TheTribebeganconstruction l ontheplannedhousingprojectwithoutobtainingabuildingpermit h fromtheTownortheState'sapprovaloftheindividualsewage  disposalsystems.TheTribeessentiallytookthepositionthat p  onceithadpurchasedtheParcel,thelandhadbecometriballand, !l" andtheTribe'sinherentsovereigntymeantthattheParcelwas "$ exemptfromlocallaw.TheStatedisagreedandfiledsuitin t$& federalcourttoenjointheTribe.SeeNarragansettIndianTribe  &p!( v.NarragansettElec.Co.,878F.Supp.349(D.R.I.1995).  Ultimately,theTribelostthatlitigation. #  4      ׀SeeNarragansettII, \ 89F.3dat922. X  ` TheTribehadsoughttosolvetheissueofthe   applicabilityofstatelawtotheParcelbyapplyingtothe `  Secretaryin1993tohavetheParceltakenintotrustundersection  \  5oftheIRA.TheSecretary'sdeterminationofwhethertodoso   wasstayedpendingtheresolutionofthefederalcourtlitigation. d  AfterthelitigationwasresolvedagainsttheTribebythiscourt `  in1996,id.at922,theTribesubmittedasecondapplicationto   theSecretary. h  ` TheTribefiledthisupdatedapplicationwiththe d SecretaryinJuly1997.Indeterminingwhethertotakelandsinto  trust,theSecretaryfollowsaregulatoryprocesssetforthat25  C.F.R.part151,whichrequiresconsiderationofseveralfactors. \ If,ashere,thelandisoffreservation,additionalcriteria X apply.See25C.F.R.151.11.Generally,thefartherfroma   reservationthelandis,thegreaterthescrutinytheSecretary `  givestothejustificationofanticipatedbenefitsfromthe  \  acquisition.Seeid.151.11(e);seealsoM.J.Sheppard,Taking   IndianLandintoTrust,44S.D.L.Rev.681,686(1999). d   ` OnMarch6,1998,theBIAnotifiedtheStateofthe `  Secretary'sintenttotaketheParcelintotrustfortheTribe.   TheStateappealedthedecisiontotheInteriorBoardofIndian h Appeals(IBIA).TheStateargued,interalia,thattheSettlement d ActprohibitedthisactionbytheSecretary,andthatintakingthe  landintotrustwithouttheState'sconsent,theSecretaryhad l actedunconstitutionally.TheIBIAaffirmedtheBIA's h determinationonJune29,2000.TownofCharlestownv.E.Area  Dir.,BureauofIndianAffairs,35I.B.I.A.93,106(2000).It p  notedithadnojurisdictionovertheclaimsof !l"  unconstitutionality.! #  5      ׀Id.at97. "$  ` TheStatetheninstitutedthisactioninfederalcourt.   Thedistrictcourt,inacomprehensivedecision,rejectedthe \ State'sclaims.SeeCarcieri,290F.Supp.2d167.Adivided X panelofthiscourtaffirmed.Carcieriv.Norton,423F.3d45(1st   Cir.2005).Theenbanccourtgrantedrehearingandwithdrewthe `  panelopinion.  \   ` Asdescribedaboveandrecountedinourenbancdecision   inNarragansettIII,449F.3dat1821XXXX,forseveraldecadesthe d  relationshipbetweentheTribeandtheStatehasbeenfraughtwith `  tension.    ` TheState'sshorttermconcernsinthiscasehavetodo h withwhethertheparticularprojectwillconformwithstateand d locallaw.TheStatealsohasconcernsthatoncelandistaken  intotrust,therewillbeveryfewmechanisms,otherthan l negotiationwiththeTribeorappealtotheSecretary'sauthority h under25C.F.R.#XXXX#Ԁ1.4(b)XXXX,bywhichtheStatemaysecurecompliance  withstateandlocallaws#XXXX#.2 #  6      ׀TheStatefearsthattheTribewill p  convertorotherwiseusetheParcel,oranyfutureparcelsthat  mightbeacquiredandputintotrust,forincomeproducing \ activitiesinwhichitnormallywouldnotbepermittedtoengage X understatelaw.    ` Therehasbeenfederallitigationbetweenstateofficials `  andtheTribeanditsmembersoversuchactivities.In2003,the  \  Tribe,seekingrevenue,establishedonthesettlementlandsan   IndianSmokeShopthatsoldcigaretteswithoutpurchasingstate d  cigarettestampsorcollectingsalestaxesthenpaidtotheState, `  asrequiredbystatelaw.TheStatePoliceraidedthesmokeshop   andinitiatedcriminalprosecutionsagainsttribemembers.The h Tribesoughtadeclaratoryjudgmentinfederalcourtassertingthat d itscontroloverthesmokeshopwasaninherentfunctionoftribal  sovereigntythatsurvivedtheSettlementAct,despitetheexplicit l languageinsection1708(a).Werejectedthatclaimenbanc. h NarragansettIII,449F.3dat3031.    II. p  ܌A. ` StandardofReview !l"  ` Technically,theclaimsatissueherearereviewed "$ throughthelensofanAPAappealunder5U.S.C.706.Ourreview t$& ofsuchanappealisdenovoastothedistrictcourt's  &p!( conclusions.SeeHarveyv.Veneman,396F.3d28,33(1stCir. '#* 2005).Theunderlyingissuesremaininginthecasearestatutory  andconstitutional.Statutoryissuesarerevieweddenovobythe \ courts,butsubjecttoestablishedprinciplesofdeferencetothe X administeringagency.Id.Constitutionalclaimsarereviewedde   novo.SeeCousinsv.Sec'yofTransp.,880F.2d603,610(1stCir. `  1989)(enbanc).  \  B. ` The1934IndianReorganizationAct    ` TheStatearguesthattheSecretarylacksauthorityto d  placetheParcelintotrustunder25U.S.C.465since,underthe `  definitionof"Indian"in25U.S.C.479,thatauthorityextends   onlytotribesthatwerebothfederally"recognized"and"under h [f]ederaljurisdiction"onJune18,1934,theeffectivedateofthe d IRA.   ` TheStatepresentsaseriesofcascadingarguments. l First,theStatearguesthattheplainlanguageofsection479is h clear,andthatunderthatplainlanguage,theTribe'sstatusis  measuredasof1934.TheStatefurtherarguesthatits p  interpretationofthestatuteistheonlyoneconsistentwiththe !l" purposesandlegislativehistoryoftheAct.Thus,theState "$ arguesthatbecausethestatuteisunambiguous,deferencetothe t$& Secretaryisunwarranted.Inanyevent,theStatearguesthateven  &p!( ifdeferencemighthavebeenwarranted,theSecretary'scurrent '#*  interpretationisnotentitledtodeferencebecauseitcontradicts x)$, theSecretary'spracticeinthemorethanseventyyearssincethe  passageoftheIRA. \   ` 1. ChevronAnalysis X  ` TheSecretaryhasofferedaninterpretationoftheIRA   thatpermitstrustacquisitionsfortribesrecognizedandunder `  federaljurisdictionatthetimetherequestforatrust  \  acquisitionismade.Acourtreviewinganagency'sinterpretation   ofastatutethatitadministersengagesinatwostepanalysis. d  ChevronU.S.A.,Inc.v.NaturalRes.Def.Council,Inc.,467U.S. `  837,84243(1984).Wemustfirstconsider"whetherCongresshas   directlyspokentotheprecisequestionatissue."Id.at842.If h congressionalintentisclear,we"mustgiveeffecttothe d unambiguouslyexpressedintentofCongress."Id.at84243."[I]f  thestatuteissilentorambiguouswithrespecttothespecific l issue,"however,wemustconsider"whethertheagency's h [interpretation]isbasedonapermissibleconstructionofthe  statute."Id.at843. p   ` (a)WhetherSection479IsAmbiguous !l"  ` Webeginouranalysiswiththestatutorytext.Ruckerv. "$ LeeHoldingCo.,471F.3d6,9(1stCir.2006).Thelanguageat t$& issueisthatcontainedin25U.S.C.479,whichprovides:  &p!(    Theterm"Indian"asusedinthisActshall '#* includeallpersonsofIndiandescentwhoare (#+ membersofanyrecognizedIndiantribenow x)$, underFederaljurisdiction,andallpersons N*%- whoaredescendantsofsuchmemberswhowere, $+t&. onJune1,1934,residingwithinthepresent +J'/ boundariesofanyIndianreservation,and  shallfurtherincludeallotherpersonsof  one-halformoreIndianblood. \  ݜ Ϝ Onemighthaveaninitialinstincttoreadtheword"now"inthe X statuteastheStatedoes,tomeanthedateofenactmentofthe   statute,June18,1934.Congresscertainlyhasusedtheword"now" `  inthisway.See,e.g.,Montanav.Kennedy,366U.S.308,312  \  (1961)(interpretingtheword"now"inareenactmentofanearlier   acttorefertotheinitialdateofenactment). d   ` Anysuchinstinctquicklydisappearsuponfurther `  examination,however.Thisisnotacasethatcanberesolvedby   lookingtotheplainmeaningoftheterm"now"standingbyitself. h "Now"means"atthepresenttime,"butthereisambiguityasto d whethertoviewtheterm"now"asoperatingatthemomentCongress  enacteditoratthemomenttheSecretaryinvokesit.Indeed, l Congresssometimesusestheword"now"torefertoatimeother h thanthemomentofenactment.SeeDiffordv.Sec'yofHealth&  HumanServs.,910F.2d1316,1320(6thCir.1990)(interpretingthe p  word"now"inadisabilitybenefitsterminationprovisiontorefer !l" tothetimeofthehearing);seealsoPiercev.Pierce,287N.W.2d "$ 879,882(Iowa1980)(notingthatthephrase"nowhav[ing] t$& jurisdiction"intheUniformChildCustodyJurisdictionAct"refers  &p!( tothetimeofthefilingofthepetition");cf.Williamsv. '#* Ragland,567So.2d63,6566(La.1990)(decliningtointerpret x)$, "nowserving"inamandatoryjudicialretirementprovisiontorefer $+t&. tothedateofenactment).Therealsoareotherlayersof  ambiguity. \  ` Giventhattheword"now"doesnotitselfhaveaclear X meaning,wemustlooktocontext.Here,thecontextisequivocal.   Ontheonehand,theStatepointsto25U.S.C.472,another `  provisionoftheIRA,whichrefersto"positionsmaintained,nowor  \  hereafter,bytheIndianOffice."TheStatearguesthatthisuse   of"now"unambiguouslyreferstothedateofenactmentandthathad d  Congresswantedtoincludelater-recognizedtribesinsection479, `  itwouldhavesimilarlyaddedthewords"orhereafter."     ` Ontheotherhand,theSecretarypointsoutthatsection h 479itselfspecifiesthedateof"June1,1934"astherelevant d datefordeterminingeligibilitybasedon"residingwithinthe  presentboundariesofanyIndianreservation."TheSecretarythus l countersthathadCongresswantedtorequirerecognitionofatribe h onthedateofenactment,itwouldhavespecifiedthatdate,rather  thanusingtheterm"now." Seealso25U.S.C.478(requiring p  electionstobeheld"withinoneyearafterJune18,1934"). !l" Hence,"now"mightmean"noworhereafter"oritmightmean"June "$ 18,1934";eitherwouldbeconsistentwithsomeotherpartofthe t$& statute.  &p!(  ` Policydoesnotprovideanobviousanswereither:each '#* sidehasaplausibleexplanationthatpolicyconsiderationsfavor x)$, itsinterpretation.TheStatearguesthattheprincipal,perhaps $+t&. exclusive,concernofthe1934statutewaswithremedyingthe  perceivedillsofthepriorpracticeofallotment. SeeKahawaiolaa \ v.Norton,222F.Supp.2d1213,1220n.10(D.Haw.2002).Because X theIRAendedallotmentsin1934,see25U.S.C.461,theywould   nothaveaffectedlater-recognizedtribes,andhencetherewould `  havebeennoreasontoincludesuchtribeswithintheambitofthe  \  statute.    ` TheSecretarytakestheviewthattheActwasintended d  notonlytoremedypastwrongs,butalsotosetatemplateforthe `  futurethatwouldencouragethestrengthandstabilityoftribal   communities. Basedonthisview,itwouldmakenosenseto h distinguishamongtribesbasedonthehappenstanceoftheirfederal d recognitionstatusin1934.TheSecretary'sviewisbuttressedby  thefactthattheActcontainsanumberofprovisionsthathave l nothingtodowithlandconsolidation.Seeid.472(Indian h employmentpreference);id.476(tribalorganization).   ` TheStatereadsUnitedStatesv.John,437U.S.634 p  (1978),toindicatethattheSupremeCourthadaninitial !l" interpretationoftheActthatcoincideswiththeState's "$ interpretation.ItisuncleariftheCourthadanysuch t$& interpretation,andinanyevent,wefindthatJohnisnot  &p!( controllinghere.InJohn,theFifthCircuithadfoundthatthe '#* MississippiChoctawswerenoteligibleforbenefitsundertheIRA x)$, becausethetribehadnotbeenrecognizedin1934.UnitedStates $+t&. v.John,560F.2d1202,1212(5thCir.1977);seealsoUnited  Statesv.Miss.TaxComm'n,505F.2d633,642(5thCir.1974).The \ SupremeCourtreversed,relyingonadifferentclauseinthe X statuteandfindingthetribeeligibleforbenefitsundertheIRA,   butonthebasisthatitsmemberswere"personsofone-halformore `  Indianblood."437U.S.at650.  \   ` Alongtheway,theSupremeCourtstated:      The1934Actdefined"Indians"notonlyas d  "allpersonsofIndiandescentwhoaremembers :  ofanyrecognized[in1934]tribenowunder `  Federaljurisdiction,"andtheirdescendants 6 whothenwereresidingonanyIndian   reservation,butalsoas"allotherpersonsof  one-halformoreIndianblood." h L 8 * Id.(alterationinoriginal)(quoting25U.S.C.479(1976)).The d bracketedadditionmaybereadtosupporttheState'sposition,but  theopinioncontainsnoanalysisonthispoint,andtheCourt l resteditsholdingonanentirelyseparateprovisionoftheAct, h onenotatissuehere.WearemindfulthattheSupremeCourt's  musingsmaywarrantourattention.SeeRossiterv.Potter,357 p  F.3d26,31n.3(1stCir.2004);butseeP.Leval,JudgingUnder !l" theConstitution:DictaAboutDicta,81N.Y.U.L.Rev.1249(2006). "$ Inthiscase,however,givenJohn'scompletelackofanalysisof t$& theprovisionthatconcernsus,therelevantlanguageseemstous  &p!( tofallshortevenofbeingdicta. '#*  ` Havingfoundbothtextandcontexttobeambiguous,we x)$, turntolegislativehistory.DespitetheState'sargumentstothe $+t&. contrary,thathistoryalsodoesnotclearlyresolvetheissue.  Indeed,itsuggestsareadingofthephrase"nowunderfederal \ jurisdiction"differentfromthatofferedbyanyoftheparties, X andisthusanothersourceofambiguity.    ` Thecongressionalrecordestablishesthatthephrase"now `  underfederaljurisdiction"wasspecificallyaddedtothestatutory  \  definitionof"Indian,"atermdefinedseparatelyfrom"tribe."   See25U.S.C.479.ThephrasewassuggestedbythenCommissioner d  ofIndianAffairsJohnCollierinresponsetotheconcernthatnot `  allself-identifiedIndiansdeservedtobenefitfromtheAct:      TheChairman.Butthethingaboutitisthis, h Senator;Ithinkyouhavetosoonerorlater > eliminatethoseIndianswhoareatthepresent d timeasIsaidtheotherday,youhavea : tribeofIndianshere,forinstancein  northernCalifornia,severalsocalled  "tribes"there.TheyarenomoreIndiansthan l youorI,perhaps.Imeantheyarewhite B peopleessentially.Andyettheyareunder h thesupervisionoftheGovernmentofthe > UnitedStates,andthereisnoreasonforit  atall,inmyjudgment.Theirlandsoughtto  beturnedovertotheminseveraltyand p  dividedupandletthemgoaheadandoperate F ! theirownpropertyintheirownway. !l" SenatorO'Mahoney.IfImaysuggest,that "$ couldbehandledbysomeseparateprovision #% excludingfromthebenefitsoftheactcertain t$& types,butmusthaveageneraldefinition. J% ' CommissionerCollier.Wouldthisnotmeet &F") yourthought,Senator:Afterthewords '#* "recognizedIndiantribe"inline1insert (#+ "nowunderFederaljurisdiction"?Thatwould x)$, limittheacttotheIndiansnowunderFederal N*%-  jurisdiction,exceptthatotherIndiansof $+t&. morethanonehalfIndianbloodwouldget  help.   P < .  ToGranttoIndiansLivingUnderFederalTutelagetheFreedomTo 2 OrganizeforPurposesofLocalSelfGovernmentandEconomic . Enterprise:HearingonS.2755andS.3645BeforetheS.Comm.on   IndianAffairs,73dCong.266(1934). 6    ` CommissionerCollierofferedthephraseasalimitation,  2  butitisnotclearwhetheritwasintendedasatemporal   limitation.Ifthecommitteewasconcernedaboutthebonafidesof :  anindividual'sstatusasanIndianandwantedtousethefactof 6 federaljurisdictiontomeasurethosebonafides,thentherewould  havebeennoreasontodistinguishbetweenthoseunderfederal > jurisdictionin1934andthosewholatercameunderfederal : jurisdiction.Infact,thecolloquyquotedabovesuggeststhatthe  committeesoughttoexcludesomeIndiansalready"underthe B supervisionoftheGovernmentoftheUnitedStates."Ifthe > purposewastoexcludethosewhomightlaterbedroppedfrom  federaljurisdiction,itwouldmakemoresensetomeasurestatusas F ! ofthedatebenefitsweresought,notasofthedateofenactment !B# ofthestatute. #%  ` Indeed,thecolloquyandtheremainderofthehearing J% ' suggestthatthecommitteewasfocusedontheissueofindividual &F") Indianswhoreceivedbenefitsfromthefederalgovernmentonthe (#+ basisofalimitedheritageandwithoutactingasapartofa N*%- tribalcommunity.Earlierinthesession,thechairmanhadraised +J'/ thecaseofa"formerVicePresidentoftheUnitedStates,"whowas  apparentlyreceivingIndianbenefits,asking,"Whyshouldthe \ GovernmentoftheUnitedStatesbemanagingthepropertyofalot X ofIndianswhoarepracticallywhiteandholdofficeanddo   everythingelse,butinordertoevadetaxesorinordertodo `  somethingelsetheycomeinundertheGovernmentsupervisionand  \  control?"Id.at264.    ` Thus,althoughnoneofthepartieshaveraisedthis,it d  maywellbethatthephrase"nowunderfederaljurisdiction"was `  intendedtomodifynot"recognizedIndiantribe,"butrather"all   personsofIndiandescent."Sointerpreted,thepurposeofthe h phrasemightwellhavebeentograndfatherinthoseindividuals d alreadyreceivingfederalbenefits,buttootherwiseinsistthatin  thefuture,onlyindividualswithatleastonehalfIndianblood l wouldqualify.Inthatcase,thelimitationmaywellhavebeena h temporalone,butthelimitation,temporalornot,mayhavebeen  intendedtoaffectonlytheSecretary'sauthoritytoactforthe p  benefitofan"individualIndian,"notan"Indiantribe."See25 !l" U.S.C.465("Titletoanylandsorrightsacquiredpursuantto "$ thisAct...shallbetakeninthenameoftheUnitedStatesin t$& trustfortheIndiantribeorindividualIndianforwhichtheland  &p!( isacquired...."(emphasisadded)).Afterall,whileCongress '#* mayhavebeenconcernedaboutmisdirectingresourcestoindividuals x)$, whowereonlyIndiansinname,thesameconcernwouldnotapplyto $+t&. federallyrecognizedtribes,regardlessofthedateoffederal  recognition.Inanyevent,thispieceoflegislativehistoryamply \ supportstheviewthatthestatuteisatleastambiguousandleaves X roomforadministrativeinterpretation.    ` Theotherrelevantpieceoflegislativehistory,heavily `  relieduponbytheState,isthestatementofRepresentativeEdgar  \  Howard,acosponsoroftheIRA:      Forpurposesofthisact,[thedefinitional d  section]definesthepersonswhoshallbe :  classedasIndian.Inessence,itrecognizes `  thestatusquoofthepresentreservation 6 Indiansandfurtherincludesallotherpersons   ofone-fourthIndianblood.Thelatter  provisionisintendedtopreventpersonsof h lessthanone-fourthIndianbloodwhoare > alreadyenrolledmembersofatribeor d descendantsofsuchmemberslivingona : reservationfromclaimingfinancialandother  benefitsoftheact.Obviouslythelinemust  bedrawnsomewhere... l    Kahawaiolaa,222F.Supp.2dat1220n.10(emphasisomitted) h (quotingCongressionalDebateonWheelerHowardBill(1934)inIII  TheAmericanIndianandtheUnitedStates(1973))(internal p  quotationmarksomitted). !l"  ` TheStateinterpretsthereferenceto"statusquo"as "$ supportingitsviewthatfederalrecognitionoftribeswas t$& essentiallyfrozenforpurposesoftheIRAin1934. Thisseemsto  &p!( beamisinterpretationofthequote,however.Representative '#* HowarddidnotsaythattheActwould"maintain"or"preserve"the x)$, statusquo;ratherhestatedthattheActwould"recognize"it. $+t&. Moreover,thequoterefersnottoIndiantribes,butto  "reservationIndians."Thus,incontext,thissentenceismore \ likelyareferencetothatportionofthedefinitionofanIndian, X notatissuehere,thatcovers"allpersonswhoaredescendantsof   suchmemberswhowere,onJune1,1934,residingwithinthepresent `  boundariesofanyIndianreservation."25U.S.C.479.This  \  provision,withitsexplicitreferenceto1934,coveredthose   peopleofIndiandescentthenlivingonareservation,without d  regardtowhethertheymightindependentlyqualifyasIndiansunder `  theAct.Inthatsense,thedefinitionacceptedand"recognized"   thestatusquoofthereservations. h  ` Thus,wefindfromthetext,context,andlegislative d historythatsection479isatleastambiguousastowhetherthe  phrase"nowunderfederaljurisdiction"disqualifiestribesthat l werefederallyrecognizedafter1934,suchastheNarragansett h Tribe,fromthebenefitsoftheIRA. #  7          ` (b)WhethertheSecretary'sInterpretationIs   `  Permissible   * ` Aswehavefoundthemeaningofsection479tobe 2 ambiguous,wemustconsiderwhethertheSecretary'sinterpretation . is"permissible."Chevron,467U.S.at843.Aninterpretationis   permissibleifitis"rationalandconsistentwiththestatute." 6   NLRBv.UnitedFood&CommercialWorkersUnion,Local23,484U.S.  2  112,123(1987).TheSecretary'sconstructionmeetsthistest.As   discussedabove,itisreasonableandisconsistentwiththe :  languageandlegislativehistoryoftheIRA.Italsoisconsistent 6 withthepolicyoftheIRA,which,aswehaveindicated,may  permissiblybeviewednotonlyasintendingtoreversethe > government'sallotmentpolicy,butalsoasaffirmativelyconferring : benefitsonIndians,includingIndianemploymentpreferencesanda  statutoryrighttoorganizeandadoptgoverningdocuments. B  ` WethereforerejecttheState'sargumentthatthetext > andpurposesoftheIRAprohibittheSecretary'sinterpretationof  section479.Rather,wefindthattheSecretary'sconstructionof F !  section479asallowingtrustacquisitionsfortribesthatare !B# recognizedandunderfederaljurisdictionatthetimeofthetrust  applicationisentitledtodeference. \   ` 2. AllegedInconsistencyoftheSecretary's X  ` 0 Interpretation. (# (# ~ j E%  ,DL,X` XEXXXXTheStatemakesaseparateargumentonwhichitheavily   relies.ItarguesthattheSecretary'sinterpretationofsection 6   479toallowtrustacquisitionsfortribesnotfederallyrecognized  2  in1934representsachangeinpositionastotheeligibilityof   tribesforIRAbenefits,andthatthisinterpretationthereforeis :  notentitledtodeference.TheStatereliesparticularlyon 6 historicalpractice,andsaysthattheSecretaryhasnever,orat  leasthashardlyever,identifiedasIRAeligibleatribalentity > thatwasnotfederallyrecognizedin1934#XXXX#XXXXԀanddoesnotmeetthe : halfbloodtest.Theevidenceislimited#XXXX#XXXXԀwithrespecttowhether  theSecretary'sinterpretationofsection479oftheIRAhasbeen B consistentoverthepastseventythreeyears.  #  8      ׀ > #XXXXZ#TheconsistencyoftheSecretary'sconstructionis  supported,thoughnotdirectly,byaregulationpromulgatedbythe F ! Secretaryin1980.Theregulation,foundat25C.F.R.151.2, !B# setsforthdefinitionsthatpertaintotheregulationsgoverning #% trustacquisitions.25C.F.R.151.2(b)definesatribethatmay J% ' beeligibleforatrustacquisitionas"anyIndiantribe,band, &F") nation,pueblo,community,rancheria,colony,orothergroupof  Indians...whichisrecognizedbytheSecretaryaseligiblefor \ thespecialprogramsandservicesfromtheBureauofIndian X Affairs."Theregulationdoesnotdistinguishbetweentribes   recognizedbeforeJune18,1934andthoserecognizedthereafter. `  Rather,itsuggeststhatwhetherornotagroupofIndiansis  \  consideredatribe,andthereforemaybeeligibletohaveland   takenintotrust,turnsonatribe'sfederalrecognitionstatusat d  thetimeatrustacquisitionisrequested. `  Moreover,theSecretary'sprofferedinterpretationof   "now"asmeaning"today"isconsistentwithregulations h implementingotherprovisionsoftheIRA.# #  9      ׀Forexample,the d regulationimplementing25U.S.C.g# XX  g#Ԁ#g#  ##XX g##ԁ466,whichdirectsthe  SecretarytoregulatetheoperationandmanagementofIndian  forestryunits,statesthatitappliesto"anyIndiantribe... p whichisrecognizedaseligibleforthespecialprogramsand l servicesprovidedbytheUnitedStatestoIndiansbecauseoftheir   statusasIndians."25C.F.R.163.1.Similarly,theregulation t!" implementing25U.S.C.476,whichallowseligibleIndiantribes  toorganizeandadoptconstitutionsandbylaws,defineseligibility \ incurrentterms:allIndianentitiesthathavenotvotedto X excludethemselvesfromtheIRAandthatare"included,or[are]   eligibletobeincluded,amongthosetribes...recognizedand `  receivingservicesfromthe[BIA]"areeligibletoorganizeunder  \  section476.25C.F.R.81.1.   XXXXAstotheSecretary'strustacquisitionpractice,itis d  notseriouslydisputedthattheSecretaryhasneverrejectedan `  applicationtotakelandintotrustforafederallyrecognized   tribeonthegroundthatthetribewasnotrecognizedandunder h federaljurisdictionin1934.RespondingtotheState's d allegationsaboutwhosetrustacquisitionapplicationshavebeen  granted,theSecretaryandIndianamicihavesubmittedtouslists l oftribesthattheyassertwerenotfederallyrecognizedin1934 h forwhomlandhassincebeentakenintotrust.TheStatedisputes  thisevidence,arguingthatnearlyalloftheidentifiedtribes p  eitherhavenotrustlands,arenot"newlyrecognized"becausethey !l" wereunderfederaljurisdictionin1934,orhaveobtained "$ legislationfromCongressspecificallypermittingtrust t$& acquisitionsontheirbehalf.   &p!(  TheState'sevidenceofinconsistentpracticeisnot '#* persuasive.Forexample,althoughtheStateseemstoconcedethat x)$, theMiccosukeeTribewasnotrecognizedin1934,itarguesthatthe $+t&. latertrustacquisitionforthattribeidentifiedbyIndianamici  wasmadepursuanttospecificstatutoryauthorization,notsection#XXXX#XXXX \ 465. ButthestatutetowhichtheStatepointsus ,25U.S.C. X 17411750e,doesnotitselfauthorizeacquisitionoftheparcel   identifiedbyIndianamici.Rather,itauthorizesacquisitionof |  adifferentparcel.Indeed,intakingtheparcelidentifiedby ( x  Indianamiciintotrust,theSecretaryexplicitlyreliedonhis $  authorityundersection465.    Turningtoadifferentdistinction,theStatearguesthat ,|  eightofthetribesidentifiedbyIndianamiciwererecognizedand ( underfederaljurisdictionin1934becausetheypreviouslyhad  signedtreatieswiththeUnitedStates.Itisnotselfevident 0 thatsimplybecauseatribehadsignedatreatywiththeU.S. , governmentitnecessarilywasrecognizedandunderfederal  jurisdictionin1934;recognitionasintendedinsection479 4 requiresanongoinggovernmenttogovernmentrelationshipbetween 0 atribeandtheUnitedStates.SeeCohen'sHandbookofFederal   IndianLaw#XXXX#XXXXԀ3.02(3),at13840(N.J.Newtonetal.,eds2005). 8!"   ` Whetherornotatreatyexecutedbefore1934has "4$ significance,however,theevidenceisstillthattheSecretaryhas $& takenlandintotrustfortribesthatdidnotappeartobe <&!( federallyrecognizedin1934.Wenotetwoexamples.TheSecretary '8#* hastakenlandintotrustfortheSaultSte.MarieBandofChippewa )$, IndiansdespitetheSecretary'spositionthat,regardlessofprior @+&. treaties,theBandwasnotfederallyrecognizedin1934.TheSault  Ste.MarieBandisasuccessortosomeoftheChippewatribesthat \ hadsignedtreatieswiththeUnitedStatesbetween1785and1855.  X  Inaddition,in1855theBandhadsignedtwotreatieswiththe   UnitedStates. Despitethosetreaties,however,by1917the `  DepartmentoftheInteriordidnotrecognizetheBandasanentity ( x  withwhichithadgovernmenttogovernmentrelations. Opinionof $  NatlIndianGamingCommn,TheSt.IgnaceParcelat7(July31,   2006);seealsoCityofSaultSte.Mariev.Andrus,532F.Supp. H  157,161(D.D.C.1980)(indicatingthataperiodofnonrecognition D existedbystatingthat"althoughthequestionofwhethersome  groupsqualifiedasIndiantribesforpurposesofIRAbenefits L mighthavebeenunclearin1934,thatfactdoesnotprecludethe H Secretaryfromsubsequentlydeterminingthatagiventribedeserved  recognitionin1934").TheStaterejoinsthattheDepartmentof P theInteriorcannotabrogateanIndiantreaty. Butthevalidityof L theDepartmentstreatmentoftheSaultSte.MarieBand'sstatus   underthetreatiesisnottheissuebeforeus.Whatisimportant p!" istheDepartment'spositionthattheBandwasnotrecognizedand #l$ underfederaljurisdictionin1934. Id.at16.Nevertheless, $ & after1934,theSecretaryhasinvokedhissection465authorityto &!( takelandintotrustfortheBand. <(#*  ` TheGrandTraverseBandofOttawaandChippewaIndians )8%, providesasimilarexample.TheSecretaryhastakenlandinto +&. trustfortheGrandTraverseBand,whichtheDepartmentofthe  Interiorceasedtorecognizein1872.TheGrandTraverseBand \ signedthe1855TreatyofDetroitwiththeUnitedStates.In1872, X however,thethenSecretaryoftheInteriorseveredtheUnited   StatesrelationshipwiththeBandandceasedtotreattheBandas `  afederallyrecognizedtribe.GrandTraverseBandofOttawa&  \  ChippewaIndiansv.U.S.AttorneyfortheW.Dist.ofMich.,369   F.3d960,961(6thCir.2004);seealsoGrandTraverseBandof d  Ottawa&ChippewaIndiansv.U.S.AttorneyfortheW.Dist.of `  Mich.,198F.Supp.2d920,924(W.D.Mich.2002)("Between1872   and1980,theBandcontinuallysoughttoregainitsstatusasa h federallyrecognizedtribe.").Yet,theSecretaryhasinvokedhis d authorityundersection465totaketwentyoneparcelsoflandinto  trustfortheBand." #  10       l   TheStatealsoconcedesthattheSecretaryappearsto  havetakenlandintotrustfortwotribes,theTunicaBiloxiIndian \ TribeandtheNarragansettsthemselves,thatwerenotunderfederal X jurisdictionin1934andforwhomCongresshaspassednospecific   actauthorizingtrustacquisitions. #XXXX #XXXXEvenifwehadnoreasonto `  doubttheState'sargumentthattheSecretaryhasnothistorically ( x  takenlandintotrustfortribesnotrecognizedin1934,however, $  inatleastsomecasestheSecretaryhasnotlookedtothestatus   ofthetribein1934ortothespecificstatutoryauthority ,|  identifiedbytheStateinmakingthedeterminationtotakeland ( intotrust.InBakerv.MuskogeeAreaDir.,19I.B.I.A.164  (1991),forexample,theIBIA,inconcludingthatparticular 0 membersoftheCherokeeNationofOklahomawereeligibletohave , landtakenintotrust,didnotrelyonthe1936OklahomaIndian  WelfareAct,25U.S.C.501570,whichauthorizedtheSecretary 4 totakelandintotrustforIndiansinOklahoma.Rather,theIBIA 0 statedthattheIndians"c[a]mewithintheIRAdefinitionbecause   theyaremembersofarecognizedIndiantribeunderFederal 8!" jurisdiction."19I.B.I.A.at179.TheSecretarythusseemsto  haveintendedtoexercisehissection465authoritytotakeland \ intotrustonthebasisofcurrentfederalrecognition. X  #XXXXe# ` TheStatehasnotmetitsburdenofshowinginconsistent   interpretationbytheSecretary.Moreover,eveniftheStatehad `  shownthattheSecretaryhaschangedhisinterpretationofsection  \  479overtime,thatwouldnotnecessarilyresolvethematterinthe   State'sfavor.TheChevrondoctrinepermitstheSecretarysome d  abilitytoalterhisinterpretationovertime.SeeNat'lCable& `  Telecomms.Ass'nv.BrandXInternetServs.,545U.S.967,98182   (2005)(underChevron,anagencyshouldhaveflexibilitytovary h itsinterpretationofastatuteovertime).TheSecretaryhas d givenareasonedexplanationforhisinterpretation.   ` WerejecttheState'sargumentthattheSecretaryhas l beeninconsistentinhisinterpretationofsection479andis h thereforenotentitledtodeference.  C. ` TheSettlementAct p   ` TheState'snextattackistoarguethattheSettlement !l" ActrepealedtheSecretary'strustauthorityastoalllandsin "$ RhodeIsland.Alternatively,theStatearguesthattheSettlement t$& Actatleastcurtailedthatauthoritysothatanytrustmust  &p!( preservetheState'scivilandcriminaljurisdictionoverthe '#*  Parcel. x)$,  ` ThereissimplynothinginthetextoftheSettlement   Act,however,thataccomplishessucharepealorcurtailmentofthe \ Secretary'strustauthority.25U.S.C.1708(a)provides: X    Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinthis[Act],   thesettlementlandsshallbesubjecttothe   civilandcriminallawsandjurisdictionof `  theStateofRhodeIsland. 6   * * * *(emphasisadded).TheStatewouldhaveusreadtheActasif  2  section1708(a)appliedtoalllandstheTribemighteveracquire,   eitherdirectlyorasthebeneficiaryofatrust,butthatisnot :  whatthesectionsays.Byitsterms,section1708(a)appliesstate 6 lawonlytothe1800acresof"settlementlands."TheParcelis  notpartofthesettlementlands.Nootherprovisionofthe > SettlementActdirectlyprovidesforstatejurisdictionoutsideof : thesettlementlands.NolanguageintheActappliesstatelawto  landstheTribemightlateracquire.Moreimportantly,nolanguage B explicitlycurtails,orevenreferences,theSecretary'spower > undertheIRAtotakelandsintotrustandtherebytocreateIndian  country.$ #  11       F !  ` TheState'sargumentthusdependsonfindingthatthe  SettlementActimplicitlyrepealedtheIRA,atleastinpart.% #  12      ׀The \ frameworkforevaluatingsuchaclaimofimplicitrepealwasset X outbytheSupremeCourtinMortonv.Mancari,417U.S.535(1974).   First,wemustlooktoaffirmativemanifestationsofcongressional `  intenttorepealtheprioract,mindfulofthe"cardinalrule...  \  thatrepealsbyimplicationarenotfavored."Id.at549(omission   inoriginal)(quotingPosadasv.Nat'lCityBankofN.Y.,296U.S. d  497,503(1936))(internalquotationmarksomitted)."Inthe `  absenceofsomeaffirmativeshowingofanintentiontorepeal,the   onlypermissiblejustificationfor[finding]arepealby h implicationis[that]theearlierandlaterstatutesare d irreconcilable."Id.at550.Suchaconflictisnotlightlytobe  found."[A]bsentaclearlyexpressedcongressionalintentionto l thecontrary,"wemust"giveeffecttoboth[acts]ifpossible." h Id.at551(quotingUnitedStatesv.BordenCo.,308U.S.188,198  (1939))(internalquotationmarksomitted). p   ` Adeterminationofcongressionalintentmustberootedin !l" thetextoftheAct.NothingintheActexplicitlycurtailsthe "$ Secretary'strustauthority.TheStateofferstwodifferentlines  ofargumentastowhyprovisionsoftheActmustbereadto \ restrictthatauthority.OneconcernshowtheActaffectsthe X Tribe'srights;theotherconcernshowtheActaffectsthe   Secretary'sauthority.TheprovisionsoftheSettlementActcited `  bytheState,however,aremostnaturallyreadasmerelyresolving  \  theclaimsthathadcloudedthetitlesofsomuchlandinRhode   IslandandthathadledtothesettlementembodiedintheAct. d   ` AstotheprovisionsaffectingtheTribe,theState `  reliesindependentlyontheextinguishmentofaboriginaltitlein   25U.S.C.1705(a)(2)and1712(a)(2)andthefurther h extinguishmentinsections1705(a)(3)and1712(a)(3)of"allclaims d ...baseduponanyinterestinorrightinvolving"certainland  ornaturalresources.Theseprovisions,however,follow l sections1705(a)(1)and1712(a)(1),respectively,whichvalidate h "anytransferoflandornaturalresources"intheUnitedStatesby  theNarragansettTribeorinRhodeIslandbyanyIndiantribe"as p  ofthedateofsaidtransfer."& #  13      ׀Theprovisionsthengoonto !l" state: "$    (2)[T]otheextentthatanytransferofland t$& ornaturalresourcesdescribedinsubsection J% ' (a)ofthissectionmayinvolvelandor  &p!( naturalresourcestowhich[anIndiantribe]  hadaboriginaltitle,subsection(a)ofthis  sectionshallberegardedasanextinguishment \ ofsuchaboriginaltitleasofthedateof 2 saidtransfer;and X (3)byvirtueoftheapprovalofatransferof   landornaturalresourceseffectedbythis   section,oranextinguishmentofaboriginal `  titleeffectedthereby,allclaims...by 6   the[NarragansettTribe],oranypredecessor  \  orsuccessorininterest,memberor  2  stockholderthereof,oranyotherIndian,   Indiannation,ortribeofIndians,arising   subsequenttothetransferandbaseduponany d  interestinorrightinvolvingsuchlandor :  naturalresources(includingbutnotlimited `  toclaimsfortrespassdamagesorclaimsfor 6 useandoccupancy)shallberegardedas   extinguishedasofthedateofthetransfer.  = = = =25U.S.C.1705(a).Giventhereferencesbacktothetransfers > validatedinparagraph(1),theevidentpurposeoftheseprovisions : istoextinguishclaimsbasedonthepurportedinvalidityofthose  transfers. B  ` TheState'sargumentsthattheprovisionsshouldberead > morebroadlyareunavailing.First,theStatearguesthatthe  extinguishmentofaboriginaltitleoverlandinRhodeIsland F ! precludesthelaterexerciseoftribalsovereigntyoverRhode !B# IslandlandacquiredbytheSecretaryinunrestrictedtrust.The #% Secretarydisputeswhetheraboriginaltitleiseverthebasisfor J% ' tribalsovereignty,butinanyevent,itisclearthatsuchtitle &F") isnottheonlybasisfortribalsovereignty.Thisisevidentfrom (#+ theSupremeCourt'sdecisioninCityofSherrillv.OneidaIndian N*%- Nation,544U.S.197(2005).InSherrill,theSupremeCourtboth +J'/ heldthat"theTribe[couldnot]unilaterallyreviveitsancient  sovereignty,inwholeorinpart,overtheparcelsatissue,"id. \ at20203,anddirectedtheOneidasto25U.S.C.465as"the X properavenuefor[thetribe]toreestablishsovereignauthority   over[therelevant]territory,"id.at221.TheState's `  protestationthatSherrilldidnotinvolveastatutory  \  extinguishmentofaboriginaltitleisbesidethepoint.However   aboriginaltitleorancientsovereigntywaslost,theIRAprovides d  analternativemeansofestablishingtribalsovereigntyoverland. `   ` Trustacquisitionisnotincompatiblewiththe   extinguishmentofaboriginaltitle.TheMashantucketPequotIndian h ClaimsSettlementAct,forexample,containsvirtuallyidentical d languageextinguishingaboriginaltitle"toanylandornatural  resourcesthetransferofwhichwasapprovedandratified"bythe l Act.25U.S.C.1753(b).Atthesametime,theActprovidesthat h certainlandandnaturalresources"locatedwithinthesettlement  landsshallbeheldintrustbytheUnitedStatesforthebenefit p  oftheTribe,"id.1754(b)(7),andthatsuchlandsare"declared !l" tobeIndiancountry,"id.1752(7),1755.Itisimplausibleto "$ thinkthatCongressintendedtheextinguishmentofaboriginaltitle t$&  intheRhodeIslandSettlementActtoprecludethetakingofland  &p!( intounrestrictedtrust,butdidnotintendforidenticallanguage  intheMashantucketSettlementActtodoso.( #  14       \   ` Alternatively,theStatearguesthatthe"allclaims" X languageinparagraph(3)evenmorebroadlyforeclosesthe   assertionoftribalsovereigntyovernonsettlementlands.Tohold `  otherwise,saystheState,wouldrenderthatlanguagesurplusage.  \  Paragraphs(2)and(3)arecomplementary,however,notduplicative.   Whileparagraph(2)extinguishesaformoftitle,paragraph(3) d  extinguishesclaims.Moreover,paragraph(3)coversclaimsbased `  onotherformsoftitle,besidesaboriginaltitle,thattheTribe   mighthaveheldtolandinRhodeIslandpriortotheSettlement h Act. d  ` TheState'sbroadinterpretationofparagraph(3)proves  toomuch.TheStatearguesthattheparagraphprecludesan l assertionoftribalsovereigntyoveranylandinRhodeIsland.  h Nothinginthelanguageoftheprovision,whichrefersto"any  interestinorrightinvolving"suchland,distinguishesbetween p  claimsofsovereigntyandtraditionalpropertyclaims.Indeed,the !l" latterareexplicitlyincluded.Seeid.1705(a)(3)("including "$ butnotlimitedtoclaimsfortrespassdamagesorclaimsforuse t$& andoccupancy").ItwouldbehighlyimprobablethatCongress  &p!( intendedtopreventtheTribefromassertinganyownershipinterest  overlanditpurchasedoutsidethesettlementlands,anditwould \ becontradictoryastothesettlementlandsthemselves.Thus, X thereisnosupportforreadingthisprovisionasprecludingall   futureassertionsoftribalsovereigntyoverlandinRhodeIsland. `   ` Ultimately,thisentirelineofargumentbytheState  \  missesthepointthatwhatisatissueisnotwhattheTribemaydo   intheexerciseofitsrights,butwhattheSecretarymaydo.The d  displacementofstatelawarisesfromtheSecretary'sauthorityand `  notfromtheTribe'smerepurchaseoftheland.SeeCassCounty,   Minn.v.LeechLakeBandofChippewaIndians,524U.S.103,11315 h (1998).Inordertoprevailonitsclaimofimpliedrepeal,the d StatemustshowthattheSettlementActrepealstheSecretary's  authorityundertheIRA. l  ` AstotheimpliedrepealoftheSecretary'spower,the h StatefirstarguesthattheSecretaryisboundbythe  extinguishmentoftheTribe'sclaimsbecausethatextinguishment p  bindstheTribe's"successorininterest."25U.S.C.1705(a)(2), !l" (3).EveniftheSecretaryissucha"successorininterest," "$ however,thoseprovisionscannotplausiblybereadtorepealthe t$& Secretary'spowerundertheIRAtotakelandintotrust.The  &p!( Secretary'spowerdoesnotturnontheTribe'soriginalaboriginal '#*  interestintheParcel,beforeitpurchasedtheland,nordoesit x)$, turnonwhethertheSecretaryisasuccessorininteresttothe  Tribe.) #  15       \   ` TheStatealsorelieson25U.S.C.1707(c),which X provides:      UponthedischargeoftheSecretary'sduties `  undersections1704,1705,1706,and1707of 6   thistitle,theUnitedStatesshallhaveno  \  furtherdutiesorliabilitiesunderthis  2  subchapterwithrespecttotheIndian   Corporationoritssuccessor,theState   Corporation,orthesettlementlands.... d  s_ __ Q_ C_Thelanguageofthisprovision,however,cannotbereadtohavea `  preclusiveeffectortolimittheSecretary'spowersinanyway.   ThestatementthattheUnitedStateshas"nofurtherdutiesor h liabilitiesunderthissubchapter"merelydelimitsthefederal d government'sobligationsinimplementingtheSettlementAct.   ` WerejecttheState'ssuggestionthatthislanguage l parallelsthelanguageintheMashantucketSettlementActthatthe h SecondCircuitfoundtoprohibitcertaintrustacquisitions.See  Connecticutexrel.Blumenthalv.U.S.Dep'tofInterior,228F.3d p  82,88(2dCir.2000).TheMashantucketSettlementActusesvery !l" differentlanguagethatprovidesthat"theUnitedStatesshallhave  nofurthertrustresponsibilitywithrespectto[certain]landand \ naturalresources"outsideofthesettlementlands.25U.S.C. X 1754(b)(8).Disclaiming"trustresponsibility"overlandis   nothinglikedisclaiming"dutiesorliabilitiesunderthis `  subchapter."  \   ` ThereisnothinginthetextoftheSettlementActthat   clearlyindicatesanintenttorepealtheSecretary'strust d  acquisitionpowersundertheIRA,orthatisfundamentally `  inconsistentwiththosepowers.* #  16      ׀Thislackoflanguageisnot   becauseeitherCongressorthepartiesfailedtoanticipatethat h theTribemightlaterbecomefederallyrecognizedandeligiblefor d thebenefitsoftheIRA.TheSettlementActspecificallyprovides  forarestraintonalienationofthesettlementlands"ifthe l Secretarysubsequentlyacknowledgestheexistenceofthe h NarragansettTribeofIndians."Id.1707(c).Theunderlying  JMOUalsoexplicitlyrecognizedthattheTribewould"notreceive p  Federalrecognition"intheimplementationofthesettlement,but !l" would"havethesamerighttopetitionforsuchrecognition... "$ asothergroups."JMOUpara.15. t$&  ` HadtheActintendedtolimittheSecretary'strust  &p!( authorityincaseoffederalrecognition,itcouldhavedoneso '#* explicitly.Itwouldhavebeeneasytoextendtheprovisionsof  section1708(a)preservingstatesovereigntytocoveralllandsin \ RhodeIslandownedbyorheldintrustfortheTribe.Nosuch X languageappearsintheAct.Similarly,astheIBIAalsonoted,   paragraph15oftheJMOUwouldhavebeen"alogicalplaceforthe `  partiestosetoutanyrestrictions"ontheSecretary'strust  \  authorityfollowingfederalrecognitionoftheTribe.Townof   Charlestown,35I.B.I.A.at101.Nosuchrestrictionsappear.Nor d  doestheSettlementActcontemplateanyrolefortheStatetoplay `  intheSecretary'sdecisionwhethertotakethelandintotrust.   ThisisincontrasttotheIndianGamingRegulatoryAct. h  ` Inothersettlementacts,Congresshasspecifically d describedlimitsontheSecretary'strustauthority.IntheMaine  IndianClaimsSettlementAct,Congressexpresslyprecluded l applicationofsection465.25U.S.C.1724(e)("Exceptforthe h provisionsofthis[Act],theUnitedStatesshallhavenoother  authoritytoacquirelandsornaturalresourcesintrustforthe p  benefitofIndiansorIndiannations,ortribes,orbandsof !l" IndiansintheStateofMaine.").IntheMashantucketSettlement "$ Act,Congressprecludedthetrustacquisitionofnonsettlement t$&  landspurchasedwithsettlementfunds.SeeBlumenthal,228F.3dat  &p!( 88.TheabsenceofanyrestrictionsintheSettlementActsupports  ourfindingthatnorestrictionswereintended.. #  17      ׀Seeid.at90. \   ` TheState'sfallbackpositionisthattheSettlementAct X requiresthatthiscourtordertheSecretarytohonortheintentof   thebargainitbelievesisembodiedintheActbyputtingthe `  Parcelintoarestrictedtrust,subjecttostatelawsand  \  jurisdiction.,j #  18      ׀AcknowledgingthegenuinenessoftheState'ssense   thatitsbargainhasbeenupset,wefindthatthereliefitseeks d  isnotanappropriateexerciseofjudicialpower. `   ` IntheSettlementAct,theStateprocuredatleasttwo   clearbenefits:(1)thesettlingofdisputedlandclaimsand(2) h theapplicationofitscivilandcriminallawsandjurisdictionto d thesettlementlands.Beyondthat,theStatearguesthatitwould  neverhaveagreedtodisplacementofstatelawastolateracquired l parcelsiftheissuehadsurfacedduringthenegotiations.The h Statearguesthatthepracticalconsequencesoftheunrestricted  trustleaveitinanentirelyunsatisfactorypositionandundermine \ thecentralbargain.RhodeIslandpointsoutthatitisasmall, X verypopulousstateandthatthepracticalconsequencesof   establishingIndiancountryforitsnearbytownsmaybefargreater `  thantheywouldbeinlessdenselypopulatedareas.  \   ` Evenso,wearestillboundbythelanguageofthe   SettlementAct.EvenviewingtheState'sargumentincontract d  terms,itisrarethatacourtwillstepinandreformacontract. `  SeeBroadleyv.MashpeeNeckMarina,Inc.,471F.3d272,275(1st   Cir.2006)(reversingthedistrictcourt'sreformationofa h contract).Ourabilitytoedit,asopposedtointerpret,anactof d Congressisnolessconstrained:onlyafindingofabsurdity,not  presenthere,providesthenecessaryprecondition.CompareGreen l v.BockLaundryMach.Co.,490U.S.504,51011(1989)(editinga h federalruleofevidencewheretheapparentdistinctionbetween  civilplaintiffsandcivildefendantswouldbe"unfathomable"), p  withW.Va.Univ.Hosps.v.Casey,499U.S.83,10001(1991) !l" (refusingtoreadinanadditionalcomponenttoafeeshifting "$ provisiononthebasisthatCongress"simplyforgot"toinclude t$& it).SeealsoBlumenthal,228F.3dat91("Whilewemightquestion  &p!( thewisdomofdifferentjurisdictionalprovisionsgoverning '#*  differenttrustlands,wewillnotprovideastrained x)$, interpretationoftheSettlementActsimplytoavoidsucha  result.").ThejudiciarymaynotusurptheroleofCongress. \  D. ` ConstitutionalClaims X  ` Insupportofrecognitionofitsstatesovereignty   interestsundertheConstitution,theStatepresentsfour `  arguments.ItarguesfirstthattheIndianCommerceClause,U.S.  \  Const.art.I,8,cl.3,doesnotprovidetheSecretarythe   authoritytodisplacestatelawwithinastate'sboundaries,and d  thatsection465oftheIRAthereforeviolatestheTenthAmendment. `  Next,itarguesthattheSecretarymaynot,inanyevent,displace   statelawwithouttheState'sconsent,byoperationoftheEnclave h ClauseoftheConstitution.Id.art.I,8,cl.17.TheState d furtherarguesthattheSecretary'sactionisbarredbythe  AdmissionsClause,id.art.IV,3,cl.1,whichprohibits l formationofnewstateswithinthejurisdictionofanyotherstate. h Finally,theStatearguesthatsection465isanunconstitutional  delegationoflegislativeauthority.Werejectallofthese p  arguments. !l"  ` 1. TheIndianCommerceClauseandtheTenthAmendment "$  ` TheauthoritytoregulateIndianaffairsiswithinthe t$& enumeratedpowersofthefederalgovernment.Id.art.I,8,cl.  &p!( 3;CottonPetroleumCorp.,490U.S.at192("[T]hecentralfunction '#* oftheIndianCommerceClauseistoprovideCongresswithplenary x)$, powertolegislateinthefieldofIndianaffairs.");Morton,417 $+t&. U.S.at551(notingthatCongresshasplenarypower"todealwith  thespecialproblemsofIndians,"includingthepowertolegislate \ ontheirbehalf)."WiththeadoptionoftheConstitution,Indian X relationsbecametheexclusiveprovinceoffederallaw."Countyof   Oneidav.OneidaIndianNationofN.Y.,470U.S.226,234(1985); `  seealsoUnitedStatesv.FortyThreeGallonsofWhiskey,93U.S.  \  188,194(1876)("Congressnowhastheexclusiveandabsolutepower   toregulatecommercewiththeIndiantribes...."). d   ` TheTenthAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitutionreservesto `  thestatesthosepowersnotexpresslydelegatedtothefederal   government.Thepowersdelegatedtothefederalgovernmentand h thosereservedtothestatesbytheTenthAmendmentaremutually d exclusive."IfapowerisdelegatedtoCongressinthe  Constitution,theTenthAmendmentexpresslydisclaimsany l reservationofthatpowertotheStates...."NewYorkv. h UnitedStates,505U.S.144,156(1992).BecauseCongresshas  plenaryauthoritytoregulateIndianaffairs,section465ofthe p  IRAdoesnotoffendtheTenthAmendment.Cf.HerreraIniriov. !l" INS,208F.3d299,307(1stCir.2000)("BecauseCongresspossesses "$ plenaryauthorityoverimmigrationrelatedmatters,itmayfreely t$& displaceorpreemptstatelawsinrespecttosuchmatters.").  &p!(  ` 2. TheEnclaveClause '#*  ` TheEnclaveClauseoftheConstitutionprovidesthat x)$, Congressmay"exerciseexclusivelegislation...overallplaces $+t&. purchasedbytheconsentofthelegislatureofthestateinwhich  thesameshallbe,fortheerectionofforts,magazines,arsenals, \ dockyards,andotherneedfulbuildings."U.S.Const.art.I,8, X cl.17.TheEnclaveClause'sprovisionforexclusivefederal   jurisdictionwasintendedtoensurethat"placesonwhichthe `  securityoftheentireUnionmaydepend"arenot"inanydegree  \  dependentonaparticularmemberofit."FortLeavenworthR.R.Co.   v.Lowe,114U.S.525,530(1885)(quotingTheFederalistNo.43 d  (JamesMadison))(internalquotationmarksomitted).TheState `  arguesthat"[p]rimaryfederaljurisdictionthroughfederal   superintendenceovertheland...coupledwithCongress's h exclusivelegislativeauthorityoverIndianmatters... d collectivelyoperatetoexcludestatelaw[ontrustlands]." Asa  result,itargues,trustacquisitionscreatefederalenclavesand  thereforerequirestateconsent. 4  ` Wedisagree.First,trustlanddoesnotfallwithinthe 0 plainlanguageoftheEnclaveClause.Itisnotpurchased"forthe   erectionofforts,magazines,arsenals,dockyards,[or]other 8!" needfulbuildings."Rather,itisheldintrustforthebenefitof "4$ Indians. $&  ` Second,inSurplusTradingCo.v.Cook,281U.S.647 <&!( (1930),theSupremeCourtofferedanIndianreservationasa '8#* "typicalillustration"offederallyownedlandthatisnota )$, federalenclavebecausestatecivilandcriminallawsmaystill @+&. havepartialapplicationtherein.Id.at651.TheSupremeCourt  recentlyconfirmedthereasoningunderlyingtheobservationthat \ Indianlandsarenotfederalenclaves: X    Indians'righttomaketheirownlawsandbe   governedbythemdoesnotexcludeallstate   regulatoryauthorityonthereservation. `  Statesovereigntydoesnotendata 6   reservation'sborder.Thoughtribesareoften  \  referredtoas"sovereign"entities,itwas  2  "longago"that"theCourtdepartedfromChief   JusticeMarshall'sviewthat'thelawsof[a   State]canhavenoforce'withinreservation d  boundaries." :     vHicks,533U.S.at361(alterationinoriginal)(quotingWhite 6 MountainApacheTribe,448U.S.at141(quotingWorcesterv.  Georgia,31U.S.(6Pet.)515,561(1832))).Asaresult,the > Secretary'strustacquisitionoflandsfortheNarragansettsdoes : notevenimplicatetheEnclaveClause.   ` 3. TheAdmissionsClause B  ` TheAdmissionsClauseoftheConstitutionprovidesthat > "nonewstateshallbeformedorerectedwithinthejurisdictionof  anyotherstate;noranystatebeformedbythejunctionoftwoor F ! morestates,orpartsofstates,withouttheconsentofthe !B# legislaturesofthestatesconcernedaswellasoftheCongress." #% U.S.Const.art.IV,3,cl.1.TheStatearguesthatthe J% ' creationofIndiancountrywithinRhodeIslandamountstothe &F") formationofanewstatewithinRhodeIsland'sjurisdiction. (#+  ` Thisargumentiswithoutmerit.TheAdmissionsClause N*%- prohibitsCongressonlyfromunilaterallyestablishingwithinan +J'/ existingstateabody"onanequalfootingwiththeoriginalstates  inallrespectswhatsoever."Coylev.Smith,221U.S.559,567 \ (1911)(internalquotationmarksomitted).Forpurposesofthe X AdmissionsClause,astateisabody"equalinpower,dignityand   authority"toexistingstates.Id.TheSecretary'strust `  acquisitionfortheNarragansettsdoesnotestablishsuchabody.  \  Asaresult,theacquisitiondoesnotviolatetheAdmissions   Clause. d   ` 4. TheNondelegationDoctrine `   ` TheConstitutionvests"[a]lllegislativePowers   [t]hereingranted...inaCongressoftheUnitedStates."U.S. h Const.art.I,1.Congress"isnotpermittedtoabdicate,orto d transfertoothers,theessentiallegislativefunctionswithwhich  itis...vested."PanamaRefiningCo.v.Ryan,293U.S.388, l 421(1935).Yet,theSupremeCourthasrecognizedthat"inour h increasinglycomplexsociety,repletewitheverchangingandmore  technicalproblems,Congresssimplycannotdoitsjobabsentan p  abilitytodelegatepowerunderbroadgeneraldirectives." !l" Mistrettav.UnitedStates,488U.S.361,372(1989).Asaresult, "$ theSupremeCourthasrepeatedlyheldthatCongressmayconfer t$& decisionmakingauthorityonagenciesaslongasit"lay[s]downby  &p!( legislativeactanintelligibleprincipletowhichthepersonor '#* bodyauthorizedto[act]isdirectedtoconform."Whitmanv.Am. x)$, TruckingAss'ns,531U.S.457,472(2001)(secondalterationin $+t&. original)(quotingJ.W.Hampton,Jr.,&Co.v.UnitedStates,276  U.S.394,409(1928))(internalquotationmarksomitted).The \ Court"hasdeemedit'constitutionallysufficientifCongress X clearlydelineatesthegeneralpolicy,thepublicagencywhichis   toapplyit,andtheboundariesofthisdelegatedauthority.'" `  Mistretta,488U.S.at37273(quotingAm.Power&LightCo.v.  \  SEC,329U.S.90,105(1946)).    ` TheStateanditsamiciarguethatsection465lacksthe d  requisite"intelligibleprinciple"andthereforeisan `  unconstitutionaldelegationoflegislativeauthority.     ` 25U.S.C.465provides: h    TheSecretaryoftheInteriorisauthorized, d inhisdiscretion,toacquire...any : interestinlands,...forthepurposeof  providinglandforIndians.  Fortheacquisitionofsuchlands,...and B forexpensesincidenttosuchacquisition, h thereisauthorizedtobeappropriated,outof > anyfundsintheTreasurynototherwise  appropriated,asumnottoexceed$2,000,000  inanyonefiscalyear:Provided,Thatnopart p  ofsuchfundsshallbeusedtoacquire F ! additionallandoutsideoftheexterior !l" boundariesofNavajoIndianReservationfor !B# theNavajoIndiansinArizona,norinNew "$ Mexico,intheeventthatlegislationto #% definetheexteriorboundariesoftheNavajo t$& IndianReservationinNewMexico...becomes J% ' law.  &p!( .... '#* Titletoanylandsorrightsacquiredpursuant x)$, tothisAct...shallbetakeninthename N*%- oftheUnitedStatesintrustfortheIndian $+t&. tribeorindividualIndianforwhichtheland +J'/ isacquired,andsuchlandsorrightsshallbe  exemptfromStateandlocaltaxation.   @ 2  25U.S.C.465. 2  ` Insupportofitsargument,theStatereliesprimarilyon . anEighthCircuitdecision, SouthDakotav.U.S.Dep'tofthe   Interior,69F.3d878(8thCir.1995),vacated,519U.S.919 6   (1996),thatheldthatsection465wasanimpermissibledelegation  2  thatwascompletelylackingin"boundaries"and"intelligible   principles"andthat"wouldpermittheSecretarytopurchasethe :  EmpireStateBuildingintrustforatribalchieftainasawedding 6 present."Id.at882.ThecircuitopinioninSouthDakotawas  vacatedbytheSupremeCourt,whichdidnotpublishanopinion > explainingitsdecision,519U.S.at91920,andasaresulthas : notsetanyprecedent.Lovelacev.Se.Mass.Univ.,793F.2d419,  422(1stCir.1986)(percuriam). B  ` Onremand,theEighthCircuitheldthat"thepurposes > evidenceinthewholeoftheIRAanditslegislativehistory  sufficientlynarrowthedelegationandguidetheSecretary's F ! discretionindecidingwhentotakelandintotrust."- #  19      ׀South !B# Dakotav.U.S.Dep'tofInterior,423F.3d790,797(8thCir. #% 2005).ThecourtnotedthatthestatuteallowstheSecretaryto J% ' acquiretrustlandsonlyforIndiansasdefinedin25U.S.C.479,  andthatthestatuteprohibitstheSecretaryfromtakingextra \ reservationlandsintotrustforNavajoIndians.See423F.3dat X 797.TheSouthDakotacourtalsoreferredtothelegislative   historyoftheIRA,+ #  20      ׀whichexplainsthatthegoalsmotivatingtrust `  acquisitionsare"rehabilitati[on][of]theIndian'seconomiclife"  \  and"develop[ment][of]theinitiativedestroyedby...   oppressionandpaternalism."Id.at798(quotingMescaleroApache d  Tribev.Jones,411U.S.145,152(1973)(quotingH.R.Rep.No.73 `  1804,at67(1934)))(internalquotationmarksomitted).Asthe   dissentfromtheoriginalSouthDakotadecisionhadnoted,the h historicalcontextoftheIRAisimportant;section465's d "directionthatlandbeacquired'forthepurposeofprovidingland  forIndians[]'hasspecificmeaninginlightofthefailureofthe l allotmentpolicyand[c]ongressionalrejectionofassimilationas h agoal."69F.3dat887(Murphy,J.,dissenting).   ` OtherprovisionsoftheIRAreinforcesuchan p  interpretation.See25U.S.C.461(prohibitingallotmentof !l" reservationlandstoindividualIndians);id.462(extending "$ indefinitelyexistingtrustperiodsandrestrictionsonalienation t$& ofIndianlands);id.463(a)(authorizingrestorationofsurplus  landstotribalownership);id.464(prohibitingthetransferof \ restrictedIndianlandsexcepttoIndiantribes).Wefindthe X reasoningoftheEighthCircuit'ssecondSouthDakotaopinion   persuasive. `   ` TheNinthCircuit'sdecisioninConfederatedTribesof  \  SiletzIndiansofOregonv.UnitedStates,110F.3d688(9thCir.   1997),alsosupportstheSecretary'spositionthatsection465is d  notanunconstitutionaldelegationoflegislativeauthority. `  Althoughnotaddressinganondelegationchallengetosection465,   theConfederatedTribescourtstatedthat"[t]hegeneraldelegation h ofpowertotheExecutivetotakelandintotrustfortheIndians d isavaliddelegationbecauseCongresshasdecidedunderwhat  circumstanceslandshouldbetakenintotrustandhasdelegatedto l theSecretaryoftheInteriorthetaskofdecidingwhenthispower h shouldbeused."Id.at698.   ` TheSupremeCourthasupheldtheconstitutionalityof p  statutesauthorizingregulationinthe"publicinterest,"see, !l" e.g.,Nat'lBroad.Co.v.UnitedStates,319U.S.190,22526 "$ (1943);N.Y.Cent.Sec.Corp.v.UnitedStates,287U.S.12,2425 t$& (1932),aswellasstatutesauthorizingregulationtoensure  &p!( fairnessandequity,seeAm.Power&LightCo.,329U.S.at10405; '#* Yakusv.UnitedStates,321U.S.414,420,42627(1944).Asthe x)$, Courtstatedinitsmostrecentnondelegationdecision,ithas $+t&. "almostneverfeltqualifiedtosecondguessCongressregardingthe  permissibledegreeofpolicyjudgmentthatcanbelefttothose \ executingorapplyingthelaw."Am.TruckingAss'ns,531U.S.at X 47475(quotingMistretta,488U.S.at416(Scalia,J.,   dissenting))(internalquotationmarksomitted).Wesimilarly `  declinetodosohere.Weholdthatsection465isnotan  \  unconstitutionaldelegationoflegislativeauthority.     E. ` APARelatedClaims d   ` Thefocusoftheenbancproceedingswasonthethree `  setsofargumentsdiscussedabove.TheStatepresentedanotherset   ofclaims,rejectedbythepanel,thattheSecretary'sdecisionto h taketheParcelintotrustfortheTribeviolatestheAPA.The d Statedidnotseekenbancreviewofthisissue.Ingrantingen  bancreview,wewithdrewourpanelopinion,whichhadbeenreported l at423F.3d45.Intheinterestsofcompleteness,wenowalso h rejecttheState'sAPAclaims.   ` Wesetforthhereashortenedandslightlymodified p  versionofthepanel'sopinionastothisissue. !l"  ` TheStateclaimsthattheSecretary'sactionwasanabuse "$ ofdiscretionundertheAPA.OurreviewoftheSecretary's t$& decisionisgovernedbysection706(2)(A)oftheAPA,which  &p!( providesthatacourtmaysetasideagencyactiononlywhereit '#* findstheaction"arbitrary,capricious,anabuseofdiscretion,or x)$, otherwisenotinaccordancewithlaw."5U.S.C.706(2)(A).An $+t&. agency'sdeterminationisarbitraryandcapriciousiftheagency  lacksarationalbasisformakingthedeterminationorifthe \ decisionwasnotbasedonconsiderationoftherelevantfactors. X SeeMotorVehicleMfrs.Ass'nv.StateFarmMut.AutoIns.Co.,463   U.S.29,43(1983);AssociatedFisheriesofMe.,Inc.v.Daley,127 `  F.3d104,109(1stCir.1997).TheCourt'sreviewundersection  \  706(2)(A)ishighlydeferential,andtheSecretary'sactionis   presumedtobevalid.SeeConservationLawFound.ofNewEng., d  Inc.v.Sec'yofInterior,864F.2d954,95758(1stCir.1989). `  Areviewingcourtcannotsubstituteitsownjudgmentforthatof   theagency.CitizensToPreserveOvertonPark,Inc.v.Volpe,401 h U.S.402,416(1971);AssociatedFisheries,127F.3dat109.No d deferenceisgiventothedistrictcourt'sdecision.Associate  Fisheries,127F.3dat109. l  ` TheStatemakesfiveargumentsastowhytheSecretary's h decisionwasunlawfulundersection706(2)(A):(1)theBIArelied  ontheTribe'sfindings,ratherthanconductinganindependent p  evaluationoftheTribe'sapplication;(2)theBIAmisappliedthe !l" factorsenumeratedin25C.F.R.151.10forevaluatingafeeto "$ trusttransfer;(3)theNativeAmericanHousingAssistanceand t$& SelfDeterminationActcooperationagreementwaiverviolateddue  &p!( process;(4)theBIAfailedtoconsidertheenvironmentalimpactof '#* thehousingprojectplannedfortheParcelandtheproject's x)$, compliancewiththeCoastalZoneManagementAct;and(5)theBIA $+t&. failedtoconsidernoncompliancewiththeIndianGamingRegulatory  Act.Wedisagree,andwefindthattheSecretary'sdecisionto \ accepttheParcelintotrustdidnotviolatetheAPA. X   ` 1. IndependentEvaluationoftheTribe'sTrust    `  Application       ` TheStateclaimsthattheBIA'sdecisiontotakethe 6   Parcelintotrustwasarbitraryandcapriciousbecauseitrelied  2  exclusivelyontheTribe'sassertionsandfailedtoconsiderother   importantfactsthatoccurredbetween1993and1997.TheState :  pointstosubstantialpassagesintheSecretary'sdecisionthat 6 containverbatimrestatementsofinformationprovidedbythe  NarragansettTribeinsupportoftheir1993trustapplicationas > evidencethattheBIAfailedtoconductanindependentevaluation : oftheTribe's1997application.   ` Thereisampleevidenceintheadministrativerecordthat B theBIAconducteditsown,independentevaluationoftheTribe's > applicationandthatitconsideredtheeventsfollowingtheTribe's  1993application.Forexample,between1993and1997,theBIA F ! requiredtheTribetosupplementitsinitialEnvironmental !B# Assessment;conductedanenvironmentalhazardsurveyoftheParcel; #% requiredconfirmationofconsistencywiththeStatesCoastal J% ' ResourcesManagementPlan;wasapprisedof,andofferedto &F") facilitate,negotiationsbetweentheTribe,theTown,andtheState (#+ concerningbothenvironmentalandjurisdictionalissuesattendant N*%- totheTribe'sdevelopmentoftheParcel;andspecifically +J'/ requestedthattheRegionalSolicitoraddressseverallegaland  jurisdictionalissuesraisedbytheStateinitscommentstothe \ BIAontheTribe'strustapplication.Thisdemonstratesthatthe X BIA'sdeterminationwastheresultofitsown,independent   evaluationofthe1997application. `   ` 2. Applicationofthe25C.F.R.151.10Factors  \   ` TheStateclaimsthattheBIAfailedtoapplytheproper   criteriawhenitevaluatedtheTribe'sapplicationfortrust d  acquisition.TheregulationsgoverningtheBIA'sevaluationof `  applicationstohavelandtakenintrustarelaidoutat25C.F.R.   part151.Thefactorstobeconsideredforanonreservation h acquisitionarefoundinsection151.10,andthefactorsforan d offreservationacquisitionarefoundinsection151.11. #  21      ׀In  makingthedecisiontoaccepttheParcelintotrust,theBIA l consideredtheonreservationfactorsinsection151.10.0  #  22      ׀The h StateclaimsthattheBIAfailedtoconsider"theneedof...the  tribeforadditionalland,"25C.F.R.151.10(b).TheStatealso \ questionswhethertheBIAsufficientlyscrutinized"thetribe's X justificationofanticipatedbenefitsfromtheacquisition"as   requiredbysection151.11(b).6 #  23       `   ` Areviewingcourtwilldetermineonly"whetherthe  [BIA's]decisionwasbasedonaconsiderationoftherelevant \ factorsandwhethertherehasbeenaclearerrorofjudgment." X CitizensToPreserveOvertonPark,401U.S.at416.Thefactthat   theBIAfoundtheParcel,whichisacrossatownroadfromthe `  settlementlands,tobe"contiguous"tothesettlementlandsthat  \  arecurrentlyintrust,andthusdeterminedthatitshouldconsider   the"onreservation"factorsenumeratedin25C.F.R.151.10,is d  certainlynotclearerrorandiswithintheSecretary'sdiscretion. `  TherecordshowsthattheBIAcompliedwithsection151.10,   includingevaluatingtheTribe'sneedfortheadditionalland,and h theStatehasnotshownthattheSecretarymadeaclearerrorof d judgment.   ` ItwasnotnecessaryfortheBIAtoconsiderthefactors l undersection151.11,sinceitfoundsection151.10tobe h applicabletothistrustdetermination.WhiletheSecretaryneed  nothaveconsideredsection151.11(b),thecloseproximitybetween p  theTribe'ssettlementlandsandtheParcelwouldnothaverequired !l" theSecretarytogivethegreatestscrutinytothe"tribe's "$ justificationofanticipatedbenefitsfromtheacquisition."25  C.F.R.151.11(b). \   ` 3. TheNativeAmericanHousingAssistanceandSelf X  `  DeterminationActCooperationAgreement .  `  Requirement     ` AtthetimeoftheBIA'sdecisiontoacquiretheParcel `  intotrust,HUDwasprecludedfromreleasingfundspursuanttothe  \  NativeAmericanHousingAssistanceandSelfDeterminationActfor   anytribe'shousingdevelopmentunlessanagreementforlocal d  cooperationonissuessuchastaxesandjurisdictionhadbeen `  enteredintobythetribeandthelocalgovernmentwherethe   housingwaslocated.25U.S.C.4111(c).Intheinstantcase, h theNarragansettTribedidnotobtainsuchanagreementwiththe d Town.However,section4111(c)hassincebeenamendedtopermit  HUDtowaivethecooperationagreementrequirement,25U.S.C. l 4111(c),asamendedbyPub.L.No.106569,503(a)(2),114 h Stat.2944,2962(2000),andtheTribeclaimstohaveobtainedsuch  awaiver. p   ` TheStatearguesthatthiswaiverwasinvalidbecausethe !l" StateapparentlydidnotreceivenoticeoftheTribe'sapplication "$ forawaiveruntilafterthewaiverhadbeengranted.Onappeal, t$& theStatecontendsthatiftheBIAacceptedthewaiver,theBIAhas  &p!( inheritedthelegalerrorandactedinanarbitraryandcapricious '#* manner.Asthedistrictcourtnoted,"25U.S.C.4111(c) x)$, establishesaprerequisitetoHUD'sawardofhousinggrants.It $+t&. doesnotpertaintotheBIA'strustacquisitionauthority."  Carcieri,290F.Supp.2dat178.Nothinginthe151.10factors \ requirestheBIAtoensurethatalocalcooperationagreementisin X placeforanIndianHousingproject.    ` 4. EnvironmentalConsiderations `   ` TheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA),42U.S.C.  \  43214370(f),anditssupportingregulationspromulgatedbythe   CouncilonEnvironmentalQuality(CEQ),40C.F.R.parts15001518, d  directfederalagenciestoconsidertheenvironmentalimpactof `  agencydecisions.TheStatearguesthattheSecretaryandtheBIA   (1)failedtoconsidertheenvironmentalimpactinreachingthe h decisiontoaccepttheParcelintotrustbecausenoEnvironmental d ImpactStatement(EIS)wasprepared,and(2)failedtoconduct  theirownevaluationoftheenvironmentalimpactandinstead l improperlyreliedonanEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)submittedby h theNarragansettTribe.Wedisagree.   ` FederalagenciesarerequiredtoprepareanEISforany p  actionthatcouldsignificantlyaffectthequalityofthehuman !l" environment.42U.S.C.4332(2)(C);40C.F.R.1502.3.NEPA "$ providesthat"tothefullestextentpossible...allagenciesof t$& theFederalGovernmentshall...includeineveryrecommendation  &p!( orreportonproposalsfor...majorFederalactions '#* significantlyaffectingthequalityofthehumanenvironment,a x)$, detailedstatementbytheresponsibleofficialon...the $+t&. environmentalimpactoftheproposedaction."42U.S.C.  4332(2)(C).However,intheabsenceofafindingthatthe \ proposedactionwouldsignificantlyaffectthequalityofthehuman X environment,theBIAwasnotrequiredtoprepareanEIS.See,   e.g.,LondonderryNeighborhoodCoal.v.Fed.EnergyRegulatory `  Comm'n,273F.3d416,419(1stCir.2001)(quotingWyo.Outdoor  \  Councilv.U.S.ForestServ.,165F.3d43,49(D.C.Cir.1999)).    ` TheCEQhasissuedguidanceonwhethertoprepareanEIS. d  Thisguidanceprovidesthat"iftheagencydeterminesonthebasis `  oftheenvironmentalassessmentnottoprepareastatement,"then   theagencyshould"[p]repareafindingofnosignificantimpact" h pursuanttosection1508.13.40C.F.R.1501.4(e).Theapplicant d maypreparetheEAprovidedthattheagency"make[s]itsown  evaluationoftheenvironmentalissuesandtake[s]responsibility l forthescopeandcontentoftheenvironmentalassessment."Id. h 1506.5(b).Inthiscase,theBIAfolloweditsstandardoperating  procedureforexternallyinitiatedproposalsbyobtaininganEA p  fromtheTribeandconsideringitalongwithsupplemental !l" informationtheBIArequestedfromtheTribeandinformation "$ gatheredindependentlybytheBIA.SeeNEPAHandbookpara.4.2.B. t$& AfterreviewingtheEAandtherequisitesupplementalinformation,  &p!( theBIAcompleteditsenvironmentalanalysisandissuedafinding '#*  ofnosignificantimpact.TheBIA'sissuanceofafindingofno x)$, significantimpactsatisfieditsresponsibilitiesunderNEPA.See  40C.F.R.1501.4(e). \   ` Separately,theStatecontendsthattheBIAshouldhave X obtainedafederalconsistencyreviewinaccordancewiththe   CoastalZoneManagementAct(CZMA),16U.S.C.14511466,before `  makingitstrustdetermination.TheCZMArequiresstate  \  consultationonfederallypermittedcoastaldevelopment   activities./ #  24      ׀TheStateassertsthattheBIA'sfailuretotake d  directactiontoensurethatthehousingprojectwasconsistent  withtheRhodeIslandCoastalZoneManagementProgram(RICZMP) \ beforemakingitstrustdeterminationwasaviolationoftheCZMA. X Wedisagree.    ` TheStatehasfailedtodemonstratethataconsistency `  reviewoftheTribe'shousingdevelopmentwasnecessaryatthe  \  trustacquisitionstage.ThedevelopmentoftheParcelisa   projectthatwascommencedbytheTribe,inconjunctionwithHUD, d  priortotheTribe'sapplicationfortrustacquisition.TheRhode `  IslandCoastalResourcesManagementCouncilcorrectlyrecognized   thatthedevelopmentoftheParcel,whichrequireditsownfederal h consistencydetermination,wasaseparatematterfromthetrust d acquisition,andproperlyfoundthattheTribe'sapplicationfor  truststatuswasconsistentwiththeRICZMP. l  ` 5. TheIndianGamingRegulatoryAct h  ` Finally,theStatecontendsthatthetruepurposeofthe  Tribe'sapplicationfortrustacquisitionisthedevelopmentof p  gamblingfacilitiesontheParcel!ratherthandevelopmentof !l" tribalhousingastheBIAfoundinitsevaluationpursuantto25 "$ C.F.R.151.10(c)andthattheBIA'sfailuretoconsiderthe t$& IndianGamingRegulatoryAct,25U.S.C.27012721,inits  &p!( decisionwasanabuseofdiscretion.WerejecttheState's '#*  argumentthattheSecretary'sdecisiontoacquiretheParcelin x)$, trustshouldbereversedandthatfurtherinquiryintowhetherthe  Parcelwouldbeusedforgamingpurposesisnowrequired. \   ` NoevidencethattheTribeintendstousetheParcelfor X anythingotherthantribalhousing,asdeterminedbytheBIA,was   presented."Infact,aftertheplaintiffsexpressedconcernover `  thepotentialfordevelopmentofagamingfacilityontheparcel,  \  thetribereaffirmedthatitintendedtousetheparcelfora   housingdevelopmentandstatedthatithad'noimmediateplansfor d  anyfurtherfuturedevelopment.'"Carcieri,290F.Supp.2dat178 `  (quotingIIAdmin.Rec.,tabN).    ` Assupportforitsposition,theStatepointstoanIBIA h decisionthatreversedatrustacquisitiondecisionduetothe d BIA'sfailuretoconsidertheimpactofapotentialcasino,even  thoughtheapplicantsdeniedanyintentionofusingtheproperty l foracasino.SeeVill.ofRuidoso,N.M.v.AlbuquerqueAreaDir., h BureauofIndianAffairs,32I.B.I.A.130(1998).However,in  VillageofRuidoso,theIBIAdeterminedthat,despitethetribe's p  denialthattheapplicationfortrustacquisitionwasforgaming !l" purposes,itwasclearfromtheplannedgamingrelatedusesofthe "$ propertyandthefactthatthepropertyhadbeengiventothetribe t$& byacompanythattheBIA"apparentlyunderstoodtohavesome  &p!( gamingconnectionwiththeTribe"thattheapplicationmightwell '#*  havebeenforgamingpurposes.Id.at136.Inthatsituation,the x)$, BIAshouldhavefurtheranalyzedthepossibilityofgaming.Id.at  140. \   ` Weagreewiththedistrictcourtthat X    althoughthepossibilitythattheparcelmight   beusedforgamingactivitieswasraised   beforetheBIA,thebureau'sdetermination `  thattheparcelwouldbeusedtoprovide 6   housingwasamplysupportedbytherecord.In  \  viewofthedeferentialstandardofreview  2  affordedtoagencydecisionsundertheAPA,   thebureau'sdeterminationinthisregardmust   besustained. d   (  Carcieri,290F.Supp.2dat178. `    III.    ` Thedecisionofthedistrictcourtisaffirmed.Costs h areawardedtotheSecretary. d   Dissentingopinionfollows       46,X` X XDX6",US ,  (:!&), =>tXXdXXd= ` HOWARD,CircuitJudge , dissenting .Respectfully,I  disagreewiththemajority'sanalysisoftheSettlementAct.Inmy x view,themajorityopiniondisregardsCongress's(andtheparties') $t purposeinpassingtheSettlementActandisinconsistentwithour   ownrecentinterpretationoftheSettlementAct.SeeNarragansett |  IndianTribev.RhodeIsland,449F.3d16(1stCir.2006)(en ( x  banc).Atbottom,undertheSettlementAct,theSecretarymayonly $  taketheParcelintoarestrictedtrust5 #  25      ׀thatprovidesforRhode   Island'scontinuedcriminalandciviljurisdictionovertheParcel. ,|  TheStatemakesthisargumentintwoforms.First,byarguingthat ( theSettlementActeffectuatesapartialimpliedrepealoftheIRA  astostatejurisdictiononlandtakenintotrustbytheBIA. 0 Second,byarguingthatthestatutescanbeharmonizedbyreading , theIRAnarrowlyandsubjecttotheSettlementAct'sprovisions.  Eitherapproachgetstothesameconclusion.Significantly,the 4 generousrulesof"Indianconstruction"donotapplyinanalyzing 0 animpliedrepeal.SeePassamaquoddyTribev.StateofMaine,75   F.3d784,790(1stCir.1996)(thenormalprinciplesofimplied 8!"  repealareappliedintheIndianlawcontext). "4$ Ѐ ` Thepartiesandamicidoanexcellentjobinacquainting   thecourtwiththemanycomplexitiesofboththecaseandthe \ issuesinherentin"Indianlaw."However,theultimateresolution X ofthecasecomesdowntoaverynarrowquestion:Inthespecific   contextoftheTribeandState,whatdidCongressintendthe `  SettlementActtodo?  \   ` ThekeyprovisionisSection1705,whichiswrittenfar   morebroadlythanthemajorityconcludes.7 #  26      ׀Initsfirsttwo d  provisionsthatsectionretroactivelyratifiesalltheTribe's `  priorlandtransfersanywhereintheUnitedStatesandextinguishes   theTribe'saboriginaltitleinallsuchlands.See25U.S.C. h 1705(a)(1)&(2).Moresignificantly,Section1705goesonto d extinguishfuturelandclaims:  XXXX8 ` (3)byvirtueoftheapprovalofatransferof l landornaturalresourceseffectedbythis B section,oranextinguishmentofaboriginal h titleeffectedthereby,allclaimsagainstthe > UnitedStates,anyStateorsubdivision  thereof,oranyotherpersonorentity,bythe  IndianCorporationoranyotherentity p  presentlyoratanytimeinthepastknownas F ! theNarragansettTribeofIndians,orany !l" predecessororsuccessorininterest,member !B# ofstockholderthereof,oranyotherIndian, "$ Indiannation,ortribeofIndians,arising #% subsequenttothetransferandbaseduponany t$& interestinorrightinvolvingsuchlandor J% ' naturalresources(includingbutnotlimited  &p!(  toclaimsfortrespassdamagesorclaimsfor &F") useandoccupancy)shallberegardedas  extinguishedasofthedateofthetransfer.` x` x  6*Id.1705(a)(3).Thisprovisionobviouslygoeswellbeyondmerely 2 extinguishingaboriginaltitle(andclaimsbasedthereon),which . wasaccomplishedinthepriorsubsection.Seeid.1705(a)(2).   Thislanguageforeclosesanyfuture"Indian"#XXXX*#XXXXlandclaimofanytype 6   bytheTriberegardinglandinRhodeIsland(oranywhereinthe  2  UnitedStates,forthatmatter).Thus,Congress(andtheparties)   intendedtoresolvealltheTribe'slandclaimsinthestateonce :  andforall.#XXXXu0#XXXX 6  ` ThemajorityarguesthatSection1705(a)(3)cannotbe  readsobroadly;otherwise,theTribewouldbebarredfrom > assertinganylandclaims.Seeante,at4243.Butthemajority : disregardsasignificantfactorthenatureofthelandclaims  thatwerebarred.ThelegislativehistoryoftheSettlementAct B specificallystatesthatthe"extinguishmentofIndianlandclaims > islimitedtothoseclaimsraisedby IndiansquaIndians ."H.R.  Rep.951453,at1955(1978)(emphasisadded).Aswerecently b ! stated,throughtheSettlementAct"theTribeabandonedanyright "^# toanautonomousenclave,submittingitselftostatelawasaquid # % proquoforobtainingthelandthatitcherished."Narragansett f% ' Tribe,449F.3dat22.#XXXX1#XXXXThus,theTribewouldbefreetoassertany 'b") claimthatanyotherlandownerinRhodeIslandcouldmakeunder ($+ statelaw,butwouldbeforeclosedfrommakingclaimsbased j*%- entirelyontheTribe'sstatusasanIndiantribe.Itisbeyond ,f'/ peradventurethataskingtohavelandtakenintotrustbytheBIA  undertheIRAtoeffectanousterofstatejurisdictionisa \ quintessential"Indian"landclaim.8 #  27       X #XXXX6# ` Moreover,"Congressdoesnotlegislateinavacuum,"and   amongthemattersthatacourtmustconsiderinassessingastatute `  aregeneralpoliciesandpreexistingstatutoryprovisions.  \  PassamaquoddyTribe,75F.3dat789.TheSettlementActwas   enactedover40yearsafterSection465oftheIRAand,giventhe d  explicitacknowledgmentofpossiblefuturerecognitionforthe `  Tribe,9 #  28      ׀CongresswaswellawareoftheIRAwhenenactingthe   SettlementAct.Itisneitherlogicalnornecessarytofindthat h Congressenactedlegislationeffectuatingthiscarefullycalibrated d compromisebetweenthreesovereigns,whichrequiredsignificant  expendituresbyboththefederalgovernmentandtheState,which l providedasignificantamountoflandtotheTribe,andwhich h providedforadelicatebalancingoftheparties'interests,only  topermitthelegislationtobecompletelysubvertedbysubsequent p   agencyaction. !l"  ` Onthisscore,themajoritymissestheexquisiteirony   thattheParcelwaspartofthelandsoriginallyclaimedbythe \ Tribe.ItwouldbeantitheticaltoCongress'intenttoallowthe X Tribetopurchaseaportionoftheoriginallydisputedlandsthat   werethesubjectoftheearlierlawsuitsthatultimatelyledtothe `  JMOUandSettlementAct,placeitintrustwiththeBIA,and  \  therebycreate"Indiancountry"indirectcontraventionofthe   SettlementAct'sprohibitions.Forthissamereason,the d  majority'sattempttodistinguishourrecentNarragansettTribe `  opinionaspertainingonlytothe"SettlementLands"is   unpersuasive.Seeante,at37n.11.Bythatreasoning,theTribe h couldswaptheSettlementLandsforadjacentlandandundoany d limitationscontainedintheSettlementAct.TheSettlementAct  cannotbereasonablyconstruedtoallowsuchabsurdresults. l  ` XXXXFurther,theSettlementActwasnovel;itwasthefirst h statuteresolvingIndianlandclaims,premiseduponthe  NonintercourseAct,growingoutofanoutofcourtsettlement p  negotiatedbyatribeandthestate/landowners.SeeH.R.951453, !l" at1951(1978).Indeed,itwasexpectedtoserveasatemplatefor "$ theresolutionofotherEasterntribes'landclaimsunderthe t$& NonintercourseAct.Seeid.;#XXXXB#seealsoOneidaIndianNation,125S.  &p!( Ct.at148385(discussingNonintercourseActandoriginal13 '#* states'"preemptiverighttopurchasefromtheIndians").In x)$, lightofthefactthattheSettlementActwasthefirststatuteof $+t&. itskind,themajority'sobservationthatsubsequentstatuteswere  moreexplicitinlimitingcertainaspectsoftheSecretary'spower \ provesnothing.ElaboratestatementsregardingtheTribe's X relationshipwiththeBIAwouldhavebeenunwarrantedinthe   SettlementAct,giventhattheTribehadnotyetbeenrecognized. `   ` Moreover,thatsubsequentactsdealingwithEastern  \  tribesmadespecificprovisionfortheSecretary'sabilitytotake   landintrustforatribe,see,e.g.,25U.S.C.1771d(c)&(d) d  (MassachusettsIndianClaimsSettlement);id.1724(d)(Maine `  IndianClaimsSettlement);id.1754(b)(ConnecticutIndianClaims   Settlement),supportstheconclusionthatCongressanticipatedno h suchresultundertheSettlementAct.GiventhattheStatehad d fullcriminalandciviljurisdictionoveritsterritory,thatany  potentialjurisdictionalissueconcerningtheSettlementLandswas l specificallyaddressed,andthatallfutureIndianlandclaimswere h barred,therewouldbenofuturelandscenariosthatCongresswould  needtoaddressmorespecifically(asitdidintheotheracts).: #  29      ׀ p  Aswehavenoted,"theSettlementAct,properlyread,ensuresthat !l" theStatemaydemandtheTribe'scompliancewithstatelawsof "$ generalapplication."NarragansettTribe,449F.3dat26. t$&  ` ThereisalsonothingnovelaboutrequiringtheBIAto  accepttheParcelintotrustwithrestrictions.TheBIAis \ authorizedtotakerestrictedinterestsinlandintotrust,see25 X U.S.C.465,and,indealingwithothertribes,Congresshas   specificallydirectedtheBIAtotakelandintotrustsubjecttoa `  settlementact'sprovisions,see,e.g.,id.1771d(d);id.  \  1773b.    ` ItisalsoworthnotingthatCongressactedpromptlyto d  preservetheState'sjurisdictionovertheTribe'slandsthelast `  timethiscourtchallengedit.WhenthiscourtheldthattheTribe   exercisedsufficientjurisdictionandgovernmentalauthorityover h theSettlementLandstoinvoketheIndianRegulatoryGamingAct, d seeNarragansettTribe,19F.3dat703,Congresspromptlyamended  theSettlementActtoprovideexplicitlythattheSettlementLands l arenot"Indianlands"forpurposesofthatAct,see25U.S.C. h 1708(b).   ` Irespectfullydissent. p    Dissentingopinionfollows  !l"   "4$   XXXX8;;XXdXXd8=;;XXdXXd= ` SELYA,SeniorCircuitJudge,dissenting. Iamin  completeagreementwithJudgeHoward'scogentandarticulate x dissent,andIjoinitunreservedly.Nevertheless,Iwrite $t separatelytoexpressmyregretthat,intakingfartoonarrowa   viewoftheSettlementAct,themajoritygivesshortshriftnot |  onlytotheinterestsoftheStateofRhodeIslandbutalsotothe ( x  carefullycalibratedarrangementscraftedbetweentheStateandthe $  Tribe.    ` Wepreviouslyhavemadeclearthatthetouchstonein ,|  resolvingjurisdictionaldisputesbetweentheStateandtheTribe ( isthefulleffectuationoftheparties'intent.SeeNarrangansett  IndianTribev.RhodeIsland,449F.3d16,22,25(1stCir.2006) 0 (enbanc).Yet,today,themajoritysetsasidetheparties'intent , infavorofawoodenreadingofonesubsectionoftheSettlement  Act.Seeanteat37("Byitsterms,section1708(a)appliesstate 4 lawonlytothe1800acresof'settlementlands.'TheParcelisnot 0 partofthesettlementlands.").    ` Despitetheartfuldraftmanshipofthemajorityopinion, 8!" theprovisiononwhichitreliescannotbewrestedfromits "4$ historicalcontextandreadinavacuum.TheSettlementAct,when $& takentogetherwiththeextinguishmentofallIndianclaims <&!( referabletolandsinRhodeIsland,theTribe'ssurrenderofits '8#* righttoanautonomousenclave,andthewaiverofmuchofits )$, sovereignimmunity,seeNarrangansettIndianTribe,449F.3dat22, @+&. 2425,suggestswithunmistakableclaritythatthepartiesintended  tofashionabroadarrangementthatpreservedtheState'scivil, \ criminal,andregulatoryjurisdictionoveranyandalllandswithin X itsborders.Therefore,theSettlementActlogicallyandequitably   shouldbereadtoprohibitanyunilateralactionthatwouldupset `  thishardbargainedanddelicatejurisdictionalbalance.  \   ` TheSecretary'stakingofanafteracquiredparcelinto   anunrestrictedtrustisjustsuchanevent.Itstrainscredulity d  tosurmise,asdoesthemajority,thattheStatewouldhavemade `  suchsubstantialconcessions"includingthetransfer,freeand   clear,of1800acresofitsland"whileleavingopenthegaping h loopholethattoday'sdecisioncreates. d  ` Themajorityadmitsthatthiscaseis"inmanywaysa  proxyfortheState'slargerconcernsaboutitssovereignty,"ante l at4,includingtheState'sunderstandableworrythattheTribe h willusethisparcel(orfutureparcelsthatmightbeacquiredand  placedintotrust)foractivitiesthatwouldbeforbiddenunder p  StatelawandanathematoamajorityoftheState'scitizens.At !l" oralargument,theSecretaryoftheInteriorandtheBureauof "$ IndianAffairsappearedtodisclaimanyvestigeofresponsibility t$& fortheState'sconcerns.Despitethisdisclaimerand"the  &p!( genuinenessoftheState'ssensethatitsbargainhasbeenupset," '#*  anteat47,themajorityturnsitsbackontheState. x)$,  ` Inmyview,thisiserror"anderrorofthemost   deleteriouskind.Themajority,withoutanythingapproaching \ sufficientjustification,isengaginginpointlessliteralismand X forcingtheStatetorelyonthefaintvelleitythattheSecretary   willusecautionintheexerciseofhisresponsibilitiesin `  connectionwiththeParcel.While"hope"istheofficialmottoof  \  RhodeIsland,theStateshouldnotbeforcefedhopeinplaceof   rightsforwhichithasbargained. d   ` AsIndiantribesevolveinmodernsociety,oldlegal `  rulestendtoblur.Thecontroversythatdividesourcourttoday   isvexingandofparamountimportancetoboththeStateandthe h Tribe.Thus,theissue"aswellastheunderlyingprinciplesof d Indianlaw"doubtlesswouldbenefitfromconsiderationbythe  SupremeCourt.Thatisaconsummationdevoutlytobewished.In l themeantime,however,thereistoomuchatstaketoallowthe h Tribe,withthecontrivanceoftheSecretary'stakingtheParcel  intotrust,towalkawayfromanarrangementthatithelpedto p  fashionandfromwhichithasbenefittedovertheyears. !l"  ` Irespectfullydissent.#XXXX,S#