Native American Mohegans v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 12 February 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:00CV2015(JBA).,3:00CV2015(JBA). |
| Citation | 184 F.Supp.2d 198 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | NATIVE AMERICAN MOHEGANS, et al. v. UNITED STATES, et al. |
Martin Chorches, Anthony Steven Novak, Chorches & Novak, P.C., Wethersfield, CT, Juliet D. Hiznay, Lawrence G. McBride, Freedman, Levy, Kroll & Simonds, Patrick J. Kearney, Foley & Lardner, Emil Hirsch, O'Connor & Hannan, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
John B. Hughes, U.S. Attorney's Office, New Haven, CT, Joseph Bree Burns, Rome McGuigan Sabanosh, Mark F. Kohler, Attorney General's Office, Hartford, CT, for Defendants.
[Doc. ##25, 28, 30]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ......................................................... 201
II. Factual Background ................................................... 202
III. Discussion ........................................................... 207
A. State's Motion to Dismiss ......................................... 207
1. Sovereign immunity ............................................. 207
2. Necessary and indispensable parties ............................ 210
i. Necessary party ............................................ 211
ii. Indispensable party ........................................ 211
B. Tribal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss .............................. 213
1. Tribal sovereign immunity ...................................... 214
2. Necessary and indispensable parties ............................ 217
C. Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ............................. 217
1. Statute of limitations ......................................... 217
i. The purpose of § 1775h ................................ 218
ii. § 1775h comports with due process ..................... 220
2. Tribal recognition ............................................. 222
IV. Conclusion ........................................................... 223
The origins of the present dispute arose with the split of the historic Mohegan Indian Tribe into two factions in the 1970s, following disagreement within the Mohegan Tribal Council as to whether to pursue a land claim suit against the State of Connecticut and/or a petition for federal recognition. One faction, the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut ("MTIC"), has since reaped the benefits of federal acknowledgment and the settlement of the land claims suit against the State of Connecticut, and now operates Mohegan Sun, a successful casino operation in Montville, Connecticut. Plaintiff Native American Mohegans ("NAM"), the other faction, together with several members of Native American Mohegans, filed this lawsuit against MTIC, the State of Connecticut, the United States and various federal officials and agencies, alleging that the Mohegan Nation of Connecticut Land Claims Settlement Act of 19941 (the "Settlement Act"), which describes MTIC as "the successor in interest to the aboriginal entity known as the Mohegan Indian Tribe" and purports to extinguish the land claims of the Mohegan Tribe, is unconstitutional, or alternatively, seeking declaratory relief that NAM's land claims were not extinguished by the Settlement Act. Plaintiff NAM also seeks judicial recognition as a federally-recognized tribe.
For the reasons set forth more fully below, this case is dismissed in its entirety. More specifically, the Court finds that both the State of Connecticut and MTIC are entitled to sovereign immunity from suit. The Court also concludes that the State is a necessary and indispensable party, without which the case cannot go forward on plaintiffs' claims seeking declaratory relief as to whether the Settlement Act extinguished land claims to which NAM might be entitled. Accordingly, those claims are dismissed. Similarly, MTIC is a necessary and indispensable party to plaintiffs' claim seeking imposition of a constructive trust on the proceeds of the Mohegan Sun casino, and that claim must be dismissed. In contrast, the Court finds that the State is not indispensable to plaintiffs' constitutional challenges to the Settlement Act's 180 day statute of limitations, and as MTIC waived its immunity from suit as to that claim, the Court has jurisdiction to address it.
On the merits of plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the statute of limitations, the Court concludes that the 180 day statute of limitations is reasonably related to the interest in ensuring a short time period in which the Settlement Act's legality could be determined to protect the reliance interest of the State, MTIC and the Town of Montville. In addition, the statute of limitations does not violate due process because plaintiffs' constitutional challenges could have been brought within 180 days of October 19, 1994, as provided in the Settlement Act. As the statute of limitations is not unconstitutional, plaintiffs' substantive constitutional challenges to the Act itself are time-barred.
Finally, the Court concludes that NAM's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies through the Bureau of Indian Affairs compels dismissal of its claim for a judicial declaration that it is a federally-recognized tribe.
The following factual summary is taken from plaintiffs' amended complaint and is assumed to be true for purposes of this motion to dismiss.2
John Hamilton was appointed Grand Sachem of the Mohegans by his mother, the Queen of the Mohegans, in 1933. This title was affirmed as "Sachem for Life" by the Mohegan Tribal Council in 1936. Hamilton's leadership was recognized and supported by the Mohegans, including Courtland Fowler, from 1933 through the 1960s. In the late 1960s, Hamilton was authorized by the Council of Descendants of Mohegan Indians to act on its behalf in matters pertaining to the relations between the Mohegan Indian Tribe and the State of Connecticut. At that time, Fowler served on the Council under Hamilton.
In 1970, a faction of Mohegans became dissatisfied with the prospects of the Mohegan Indian Tribe filing a land claim suit, and at an unofficial Council meeting in May 1970, sought to elect a new leader of the Mohegan Tribe. Hamilton rejected the asserted authority of the Council to replace him, and he and his followers left the meeting. The remaining Mohegan Indians at the meeting elected Courtland Fowler as their leader. Despite this schism, however, from the 1970s until 1994, no Mohegan Indian was excluded from participation in traditional practices, events or ceremonies by virtue of association with either the Hamilton or Fowler faction of Mohegan Indians.
Hamilton continued to pursue a land claim suit on behalf of the Mohegan Tribe, and retained counsel for the purpose of prosecuting the land claim suit. In 1977, "The Mohegan Tribe," acting through Hamilton, filed a land claim suit in federal district court in Connecticut against the State of Connecticut, asserting that aboriginal and historic claims and titles to over 2,000 acres in Montville, Connecticut had been extinguished in violation of the Non-Intercourse Act.3 Hamilton further filed a notice with the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") seeking federal acknowledgment of "The Mohegan Tribe" in 1978. Both the land claim suit and the acknowledgment petition were filed on behalf of the Mohegan Tribe by attorney Jerome Griner, who had been retained by Hamilton under his authority as Grand Sachem.
From May 1970 through 1979, the Fowler faction continued to actively and publically oppose both the land claim suit and the federal acknowledgment petition. From 1979 to 1981, the Fowler faction organized an entity called the "Mohegan Tribal Council" and adopted a constitution for its governance in 1980.4 At around this time, Griner, counsel of record for the Mohegan Tribe in the land claim suit and the federal acknowledgment petition, ceased accepting direction from Hamilton and instead began to take direction from the Fowler faction, without notifying either the federal court or the BIA of his change in clients. Upon discovering that Griner had begun to serve the interests of the Fowler faction in 1981, Hamilton discharged Griner and retained separate counsel, Robert Cohen. Although the State raised the issue of the propriety of filings by two attorneys on behalf of "The Mohegan Tribe" in the land claim suit when Cohen filed his appearance in 1981 and then later in 1989, the issue of authorization for the filings of Griner and Cohen was never resolved by the district court.
In 1985, Griner filed detailed documentation before the BIA in support of the 1978 acknowledgment petition on behalf of "The Mohegan Tribe, petitioner." Griner submitted an MTIC membership roll of 1,017 members, claiming that this roll relied on lists of Mohegan Indians prepared by the State of Connecticut. The BIA then placed the petition under "active consideration."
Also in 1985, the State of Connecticut filed a formal opposition to federal acknowledgment with the BIA, characterizing Hamilton and his followers and the Fowler group as two factions of a single, unitary Mohegan Tribe. In support of this position, the State relied on a 1979 letter from a member of the Fowler faction stating that "`they do not have a tribal organization because they are going to organize to form a tribal group for the sole purpose of combating John Hamilton.'"
In November 1989, the BIA announced its proposed decision that the United States would not acknowledge the Mohegan Tribe, based on its finding that from 1941 to the date of the rejection, the Mohegan Tribe did not demonstrate sufficient social community or sufficient political authority and influence, as required under 25 CFR 83.7(b) and (c). The BIA did not examine the files and records of Hamilton or the Council prior to issuing the proposed rejection. In 1990, Cohen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLinko v. Commonwealth
...statute of limitations for Native Americans to assert land claim held not to violate due process); Native American Mohegans v. United States , 184 F. Supp. 2d 198 (D. Conn. 2002) (federal statute providing 180-day statute of limitations for Native Americans to assert land claim held not to ......