This is only tangentially related to the usual topics of this blog, but given the first sentence in the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gaming, Ltd., No. 05-17066 (June 26, 2008), I could not resist:
This appeal presents the single, seemingly straightforward questionwhether the word “is” really means “is,” at least as that word isemployed in 25 U.S.C. § 81.
Slip op. at 7515. The decision does involve the definition of the term “Indian lands” under federal law, so it is fair game here:
At the core of the present dispute, that statute requires the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (“Secretary”) to approve any “contract with an Indian tribe that encumbers Indian lands for a period of 7 or more years” before such a contract can be considered valid. Section 81(a) defines the term “Indian lands” in part as “lands the title to which is held by the United States in trust for an Indian tribe” (emphasis added).
Id. (emphasis original).