Department of the Interior v. South Dakota

Background

The dispute involves the Department of the Interior’s 1990 acquisition of 91 acres in trust for the Lower Brule Sioux tribe under a 1934 Indian Reorganization Act provision. Local challengers sued in federal court, arguing that the Department’s action violated the Administrative Procedure Act and that the law giving the Secretary authority to acquire trust land unlawfully delegated legislative power. The District Court found that ordinary APA review was unavailable and treated the Quiet Title Act as the only remedy, and it upheld the Secretary’s authority. The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding the statute unconstitutional as an improper delegation of legislative power.

Reasoning

After the Eighth Circuit decision, the Department issued a new rule requiring a 30-day public notice before taking land into trust, saying that this would permit judicial review before title passed. The Solicitor General told the Court that APA review is available only if notice is given before title transfers, but that once title is held by the United States the Quiet Title Act still blocks APA challenges. Rather than decide the constitutional question, the Court granted review, vacated the lower judgments, and remanded the case for further proceedings and reconsideration in light of the Government’s changed position.

Real world impact

The immediate effect is procedural: the lower courts’ judgments were vacated and the matter was sent back for reconsideration, not finally resolved on the constitutional question. Going forward, the Department’s 30-day notice rule may let outsiders seek review before title transfers, but that protection does not apply to land already acquired. The case’s ultimate outcome on the constitutionality of the statute remains undecided and may be revisited in later proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia, joined by Justices O’Connor and Thomas, dissented. He argued the Court should have granted full review because a federal statute was declared unconstitutional, criticized the GVR as unfair, and noted the Government’s changed position did not help this specific case where title already had passed.