October Term 2008 · Docket 07-526

Does the Indian Reorganization Act allow the federal government to take land into trust for tribes not under federal jurisdiction in 1934?

the sides that brought the case argue the statute excludes tribes not under federal jurisdiction in 1934. The government argues the text allows trust land for any tribe.

Official caption
Carcieri v. Kempthorne
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Theodore Olson argued Congress unambiguously answered the question in the 1934 Act.

    Olson stated the Narragansetts lacked a federal relationship at the time of enactment.

    The government advocate argued the text supports the Secretary's action for three reasons.

    The advocate cited section 5 authorizing trust land for any Indian tribe.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests the scope of the Indian Reorganization Act. the sides that brought the case claim the law restricts trust land to tribes under federal jurisdiction in 1934. The government claims the law authorizes trust land for any tribe. The dispute centers on the phrase now under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 3, 2008.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to reverse the lower court's affirmation of the Secretary's action.

The government wants the Court to affirm the lower court's rejection of the sides that brought the case' claim.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the statute unambiguously limits trust land to tribes under federal jurisdiction in 1934.

The government argues the statute authorizes the Secretary to take land into trust for any Indian tribe.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kennedy asked what sort of tribes were not under federal jurisdiction.

Justice Ginsburg noted the effort was ridden with mistakes according to the record.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome determines whether the federal government can take land into trust for tribes not under federal jurisdiction in 1934. This affects the scope of federal authority over tribal lands. It defines the legal status of tribes seeking federal recognition and land trust status.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON