The U.S. federal government is challenging a California tribe’s effort to prevent the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) from approving a casino project on the tribe’s historic lands. The government argues that the tribe has failed to demonstrate any irreparable harm that would justify a temporary restraining order (TRO).

On Tuesday, the DOI asked a Northern California federal district court to dismiss the motion filed by the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR). The government asserts that the alleged harm the tribe claims is speculative, as the DOI has not made a final decision on taking land into trust for the casino project. The government also argues that any potential harm is not irreparable.

In its lawsuit, filed last month, the FIGR accused the DOI, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) of failing to meet the consultation requirements set forth by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The tribe claims this failure has occurred in relation to a proposed casino project by the Koi Nation of Northern California. The proposed project site, located in Sonoma County, is near Windsor, California, and the tribe says the land is culturally and historically significant to it and other Southern Pomo tribes.

The tribe’s complaint describes the land as essential to their identity and survival, given the history of genocide against California’s indigenous peoples. The FIGR is seeking an injunction to prevent the DOI and BIA from making any decisions on whether to take the 65-acre parcel into trust for the casino until the consultation process is properly conducted to address the potential impact on historic properties.

The FIGR contends that the DOI's environmental review failed to consider the cultural significance of the land. According to the tribe, the DOI’s rush to approve the land trust transfer risks putting culturally significant resources at the site at risk, potentially undermining legal protections under California law. The tribe further claims that this would transfer ownership of Southern Pomo resources found on the land to the Koi Nation.

In its response, the federal government stated that the DOI began reviewing the project in 2022, including conducting field surveys after the Koi Nation submitted its application for the casino. The DOI contended that the surveys found only a small number of historic and prehistoric items, which it concluded did not meet the requirements for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places.

The federal government also pointed out that the DOI had consulted with multiple local tribes and the California State Historic Preservation Office, and that the FIGR had received an invitation to a consultation meeting in 2022. In addition, the DOI met with the FIGR in 2023 to discuss concerns about the project, which resulted in additional archaeological studies. However, the DOI’s investigations, including excavations, revealed no evidence of human remains or other culturally significant features at the site.

The federal government is asking the court to reject the tribe’s request for a TRO, arguing that the tribe’s claim of harm is based on assumptions about how the DOI will act, rather than any concrete injury. The government also contended that the tribe has failed to demonstrate the type of imminent harm needed to justify such an order.

The DOI noted that the Koi Nation’s proposed casino project would include a hotel, an event center, a spa, and over 5,000 parking spaces. The project site is about 50 miles from the Koi Nation’s ancestral lands, and the FIGR argued that the project would be built in a residential area, near schools, a church, and vineyards.

In response, the FIGR maintained that the federal government’s arguments regarding standing and final agency action were flawed. The tribe presented supporting declarations, asserting that it has standing and that a final agency action has already occurred. The tribe also argued that failure to block the project would lead to irreversible damage to sacred lands and cultural practices.

The case is ongoing, and the court has yet to issue a ruling on the tribe’s motion for a temporary restraining order.

Case: Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria v. Haaland et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-08582, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.