Facts

The North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians is a federally recognized Indian tribe with a reservation located in Madera County, California. In 2005, North Fork applied to the Department of the Interior to have roughly 305 acres in Madera County taken into trust for purposes of developing an off-reservation casino and resort. The tribe then supplemented their application by requesting an exemption from the prohibition of gaming on newly acquired trust lands. In 2011, the Secretary of the Interior granted the exemption and prepared an environmental impact statement on the land acquisition. Class III gaming operations are lawful on Indian lands only if such activities are conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State compact entered into by the State and tribe. After voters struck down a law ratifying the class III gaming activity compact with North Fork, the tribe commenced an action under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to compel the compact. The court granted North Fork's motion for judgment on the pleadings and ordered the tribe and state to complete the compact within sixty days. In July 29, 2016, the Secretary of the Interior, through the Acting Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, prescribed procedures under which class III gaming could be conducted on the Madera Parcel. Stand Up For California!, Randall Brannon, Madera Ministerial Association, Susan Stjerne, First Assembly of God, and Dennis Sylvester filed a lawsuit against the Department of the Interior and its Bureau of Indian Affairs, as well as the heads of both entities, to challenge these "secretarial procedures" and prevent the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California from conducting class III gaming operations. The court permitted North Fork to intervene in the action as a co-defendant. The case went to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed summary judgment in defendants favor on the Johnson Act claims and vacated summary judgment on the Clean Air Act (CAA) and National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) claims. Both parties submitted renewed summary judgment motions.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs alleged that the secretarial procedures triggered duties to prepare an environmental impact statement under the NEPA and make a conformity determination under the CAA and that defendants did neither.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that the secretarial procedures did not trigger a duty to prepare the impact statement or conformity determination because a major federal action was not considered.

Result

Defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment was granted.