Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Feeding Operations

Tribe Lacks Authority to Regulate Non-Indian
Entity's Construction on Non-Indian Land

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Yankton Sioux Tribe Head Start Concerned Parents v. Longview Farms, LLP, No. CIV. 08-4058, 2009 WL 891866 (D.S.D. Mar. 31, 2009), the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota held that a Native American tribe had no regulatory authority under its Constitution over a non-Indian private entity constructing a farrowing operation outside of tribal land.

Background

The plaintiff, a tribal organization, brought this action to enjoin the defendant from continuing construction of a farrowing operation, claiming it was being constructed on tribal land. Id. at *1. After a hearing on the plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion, the district court determined that the facility was located on non-Indian owned land, and the defendant moved to dismiss. Id.

Arguments

The plaintiff argued that the defendant's construction of the farrowing facility violated the Yankton Sioux Constitution, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), Article VI of the United States Constitution, and the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. Id.

The defendant argued that it was not required under the Yankton Sioux Constitution to present its construction plans to the tribe for a vote. Id. at *2.

Analysis and Holdings

The court determined that the defendant was not required to obtain approval from the tribe under the Yankton Sioux Constitution because the defendant was not an Indian entity and the construction was not located on reservation land. Id. at *2. The court also granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's NEPA and APA claims because such claims apply only to federal agencies. Id. at *3, *5. The court likewise dismissed the plaintiff's NHPA claim because such claims apply only to federally assisted undertakings rather than private entities. Id. at *4. The Constitutional claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Id. at *6. Finally, the court dismissed the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act claims as well, because the plaintiff failed to provide the requisite sixty-day notice to the defendant before bringing the claims. Id. at *6-7.

The case was decided on March 31, 2009.