FOLLOW US

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.