The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Customer Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out

  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Times News Services
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Алекс Овечкин
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
    • Donne Travels
    • Lives Common
    • National Pastime
    • Politics 101
    • Stories of Faith
    • Civil War
    • Middle - America
    • Chicago Blue State
    • Zadzooks
  • Marketplace
    • Autos
    • Jobs
    • Real Estate
    • Classifieds
    • Shopping
    • Dining Out
    • Education
    • TWT Store
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Inside the Beltway
    • Inside the Story
Home > News > National

Court to hear Indian land case

State sued to block tribe's plan

By Ray Henry ASSOCIATED PRESS | Monday, November 3, 2008

  • Bookmark and Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Print
  • [-][+] Font Size
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Tell a Friend
  • Got a Question?
  • You Report
  • Click-2-Listen

PROVIDENCE, R.I. | The Narragansett Indian Tribe bought a 31-acre lot in 1991, saying it would be used for "economic development" and housing for the elderly and poor.

However, the state of Rhode Island, fearing the tribe really wants to create a tax-free zone or build a casino, sued to block the Narragansetts from putting the land into federal trust, which would essentially free it from state and local law.

On Monday, their fight reaches the U.S. Supreme Court in a case being closely watched across the country because it could determine how tribes recognized after the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act are allowed to buy, govern and use land.

States rights factor heavily into the case. The Bush administration sides with the tribe, arguing that the 1934 act allows it to take land into trust to benefit American Indians, regardless of when their tribes were recognized.

Rhode Island and 21 other states want the Supreme Court to limit that authority because states lose control over tribal trust land within their own borders. They say trust lands can alter the character of surrounding communities, especially when casino income allows tribes to embark on major projects.

Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch said that allowing the federal government to place the Narragansetts' land into trust would free it from state criminal laws and from safety and zoning rules, and allow operation of tax-free shops that undercut a financially struggling state's revenue collection.

"Criminals theoretically could go, commit crimes in the rest of Rhode Island and hide on that land, and we'd be unable to go get them," Mr. Lynch said.

Narragansett Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas, leader of the 2,400-member tribe, scoffs at the notion that tribal land would become lawless and notes that many states have learned to coexist with tribal reservations. His tribe hopes to use its sovereignty as a bargaining chip to stimulate development.

"If you can give someone incentives to come to you and do business with you, that's how you draw them," Chief Thomas said. "Where if you have nothing to offer, no one's going to come around."

The Supreme Court must decide whether the U.S. secretary of the interior can hold land in trust for tribes like the Narragansetts who were federally recognized after the 1934 law was enacted. The court also will have to clarify whether a 1978 land settlement between the tribe and Rhode Island puts limits on new trust lands in the state.

After buying the land in Charlestown, the tribe started construction on a planned elderly housing complex, but work stopped because of mismanagement and legal disputes, leaving a dozen empty houses.

Chief Thomas said he wants to complete the project and pursue some form of "economic development" on the site. He will not rule out gambling, and the tribe has unsuccessfully sought approval to build a casino in Rhode Island in the past.

Voters rejected a state constitutional amendment in 2006 that would have allowed the Narragansetts to open a casino in West Warwick.

Lawyers for the state and town leaders in Charlestown argue that the Narragansetts cannot place their land in trust under the Indian Reorganization Act because the tribe was not recognized when it was passed.

In their view, Congress wanted the act to help tribes that lost millions of acres during a forced assimilation campaign that began in 1887 - and the Narragansetts aren't one of them.

Disbanded by Rhode Island lawmakers in 1880, the Narragansetts sold off nearly all their remaining land in a murky deal and were not recognized by the federal government until 1983.

Indian rights advocates say Congress never meant to cut off tribes recognized after 1934 and say the act was supposed to set a template for relations with tribes.

[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Bookmark and Share

Comments

Read Comments

Post your comment:

Please login or register to post a comment

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?

  • ASSOCIATED PRESS
Narragansett Indian Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas stands in a partially completed housing complex for the elderly and poor in Charlestown, R.I. The tribe's legal fight reaches the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.

Click the photo to enlarge.

Advertisement

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. Powell airs doubts on Obama agenda
  2. EDITORIAL: Passing unread laws
  3. EDITORIAL: Return of the Black Panther
  4. EXCLUSIVE: Israel declines to ask U.S. to OK Iran attack

Most Shared

  1. EDITORIAL: Passing unread laws
  2. EDITORIAL: Return of the Black Panther
  3. HOLMES: Deja vu on dictators, double standards
  4. EDITORIAL: The fate of FedEx
  5. Israeli know-how
  6. EDITORIAL: Dancing with the bear
  7. LETTER TO EDITOR: Coming to grips with Palestinian guilty trips
  8. Bloated deficits endanger dollar's global status
  9. EDITORIAL: Rewriting economic history
  10. YON: Girl with no future

Most Commented

  1. Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind
  2. WH communications director leaving
  3. Freddie Mac acting CFO found dead
  4. Kerry aims to rescue newspapers
  5. Fidel Castro: Obama 'misinterpreted' words
  6. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  7. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  8. Gibbs: Pay no attention to what Rahm said
  9. Politics' Talking Heads Highlight Speaker Series
  10. Fleecing Mike Ditka

Poll

Do you think the G-8 is still effective in today's times?

Market Data

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.