California courts have certainly been busy as of late. In particular, challenges abound as to the Department of the Interior (the DOI) and its decisions to take certain parcels of land into trust for the purpose of rendering such parcels eligible for gaming activities by certain California tribes.
The DOI Shiloh Parcel Dispute
The Shiloh parcel, a tract of land the DOI previously approved as land taken into trust for gaming purposes under the restored lands exception of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) on behalf of the Koi Nation of Northern California (The Koi), has been the subject of considerable controversy.
Snell & Wilmer previously discussed the lawsuits brought by the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) and the State of California (California) regarding the DOI’s Shiloh parcel decision.1 The Koi had been allowed to intervene in FIGR’s suit as an indispensable party in order to move for dismissal, without waiving the Koi’s sovereign immunity.2 A parallel lawsuit brought by California saw similar motions filed by the Koi.
Update: State of California’s Shiloh Parcel Case
In late August, the court applied the same logic to the California case as it applied in the FIGR case. The court allowed the Koi’s intervention for the limited purpose of moving for dismissal, then rejected the motion for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7) (failure to join an indispensable party) on public rights exception grounds.3 The court then concluded that the Koi would not be joined in the litigation due to its sovereign immunity.4
Update: The FIGR’s Shiloh Parcel Case
In September, the court denied the Koi’s motion in the FIGR litigation requesting to stay the matter so the Koi could appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.5 The court determined its order could be appealed after final judgment.6
More importantly, the court granted the FIGR’s motion for summary judgment, effectively blocking construction on the Shiloh parcel.7 The court held that the DOI had not: (1) validly delegated its authority for the land-into-trust decision; (2) substantively engaged in consultation with the FIGR as required by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); (3) sufficiently reviewed cultural resource impacts to the FIGR as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); or (4) supported its conclusion of a significant historical connection between the Koi and the Shiloh parcel under IGRA’s framework.8 The court remanded the matter to the DOI to comply with the court’s order.9
The DOI Vallejo Site Dispute
The Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians (SVB) was involved in a similar dispute with the DOI and several other tribes regarding another property in California, known as the “Vallejo site.” For the Shiloh parcel and the Vallejo site, the DOI decisions to take the subject land into trust for gaming purposes were made at the end of the Biden Administration.
The SVB’s Vallejo Site Request
In 2016, the SVB submitted an application to the DOI requesting the DOI take 160 acres located in California’s San Francisco Bay Area, the Vallejo site, into trust.10 In 2019, the DOI rejected the application based upon insufficient evidence to establish the SVB had a significant historical connection to the Vallejo site.11 The SVB sued the DOI in 2019.12 In 2022, the court ruled that the DOI needed to review the application again due to the ambiguity of a statutory term, which the DOI first appealed before then deciding to review the application anew.13
In January 2025, the DOI granted approval of the 2016 application, taking the Vallejo site into trust for the SVB’s gaming purposes.14 The SVB intended to develop a 400,000-square-foot resort and casino on the Vallejo site (Proposed Development).15 However, in March, three tribes, the Yocha Dehe Wintun and Kletsel Dehe Wintun nations and the United Auburn Indian Community, separately sued the DOI in Washington, D.C. District Court, alleging the DOI approval violated federal law.16
Tribal Challenges to the DOI Decision
The legal violations alleged were largely the same as those alleged in the Shiloh parcel dispute — IGRA, NEPA, and IRA — as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).17 Similar to the FIGR’s claims as to the Shiloh parcel, the three tribes nearest the Vallejo site alleged the DOI did not properly consult with their tribal governments prior to rendering its decision.18
On March 27, the DOI issued a letter (the DOI Letter) clarifying that, although the Vallejo site would remain in trust for the SVB, the DOI was rescinding its determination that the Vallejo site was eligible for gaming, pending reconsideration.19 The DOI Letter stated that it was “concerned that the Department did not consider additional evidence submitted after the 2022 remand.”20 Finally, the DOI Letter invited interested parties to submit information regarding “whether the Vallejo [s]ite qualifies as restored lands” under IGRA.21
SVB’s Suit Against the DOI’s Recission
The SVB then filed suit against the DOI in Washington, D.C. District Court alleging the DOI’s rescission exceeded the DOI’s authority and violated IGRA rules and the Administrative Procedure Act.22
The court denied the SVB’s request for a preliminary injunction, finding that the SVB did not sufficiently demonstrate imminent tribal harm to either its financial interests or its sovereignty.23 The court declined to reinstate gaming eligibility for the Vallejo site.24 As a result, the DOI could continue its reconsideration of the Vallejo site’s gaming eligibility.25
Court Decisions: the Vallejo Site and the Shiloh Parcel
Despite similar legal allegations and factual predicates, the outcomes may differ for these two tracts of land. The litigation for each is being conducted in separate circuits, despite the properties in question both lying within California. While the California court issued its ruling requiring the DOI reevaluate its Shiloh parcel decision, the D.C. court has so far not indicated what action it will take regarding the DOI’s decision as to the Vallejo site. At present, the Vallejo site is still land in trust, albeit without gaming eligibility; meanwhile, the Shiloh parcel’s status as land in trust is in question and under current reevaluation by the DOI.
