Hoopa appendix supporting summary judgment - Schlosser Law Files

On February 28, 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals issued an order granting
rehearing en banc in Bugenig, 240 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2001). The case was argued and submitted
on June 19, 2001, but remains undecided. Unless the Court ofAppeals ultimately agrees with the
lower court and concludes that Congress in § 8 of the Settlement Act intended to make the Hoopa
Valley Tribe’s Constitution applicable to all persons and property within the geographic limits of
the Reservation, in accordance with the terms and procedures of the Constitution, then legislative
clarification will be necessary.
In the Secretary’s view, Congress did consider tribal authority over fee-patented land
owned by nonmembers of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. That authority was specifically mentioned by
witnesses representing various interests 7 and the Committee reports make clear the Act’s intent to
approve and confirm in the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council territorial management power throughout
its reservation.
d. Bureau of Land Management Parcels Adjacent to the Reservation
Should be Conveyed to the Tribes.
In addition to Six Rivers National Forest, a variety of federal agencies have come into
possession of lands adjacent to or near the Yurok and Hoopa Valley Indian Reservations. Some of
these lands have a clear historical connection to the tribes or the Reservations. These properties
should be conveyed to and managed by the Tribes.
7 E.g., House Interior Committee Hearing—Serial No. 100-75 (June 21, 1988) at 57, 101,
145 (nonmember fears zoning her fee land); Senate Select Committee Hearing, S. Hrg. 100-946
(June 30, 1988) at 28; Senate Select Committee Hearing, S. Hrg. 100-949 (Sept. 14, 1988) at 50,
66-67, 152-53; Subcom. of the House Judiciary Committee, Serial No. 77 (Sept. 30, 1988) at 27,
32, 54, 64, 155.
-21-