S-2735-119
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 674.
Sponsored by Alex Padilla (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would revoke a 1964 public land order and direct the Secretary of the Interior to place approximately 265 acres of federal land in California — about 80 acres of Bureau of Land Management land and 185 acres known as Indian Creek Ranch — into trust for the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians within 180 days of enactment. The land would become part of the Tribe's reservation and be administered under federal Indian trust law. The bill explicitly prohibits the use of the transferred land for Class II or Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Who benefits
The Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, who would gain expanded reservation land and the legal protections that come with federal trust status. The Tribe's members would benefit from increased land base for housing, cultural, agricultural, or economic development purposes. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, which would administer the land, gains a clearer jurisdictional mandate. Neighboring communities may benefit if the Tribe develops the land for non-gaming economic uses. Environmental interests may benefit if the Tribe manages the land under tribal conservation practices.
Who is hurt
Current users of the BLM land — such as recreational users, hunters, or grazing permit holders — who may lose access once the land is placed into trust. California state and local governments would lose any property tax revenue or regulatory jurisdiction over the land, as trust land is generally exempt from state and local taxation. Competing land users or developers who may have had interest in the parcels. Neighboring landowners who may be affected by changes in land use or management practices.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that placing this land into trust fulfills longstanding federal obligations to restore tribal land bases that were diminished through historical federal policies, and that the Shingle Springs Band has a recognized legal and cultural connection to this territory in California. They contend the explicit gaming prohibition addresses the most common community concern about trust land transfers, making this a straightforward land restoration with no casino development risk. The bill follows an established congressional process for individual tribe land transfers that has been used successfully for decades.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that transferring land into federal trust removes it permanently from state and local tax rolls and regulatory jurisdiction, shifting costs and governance burdens onto surrounding communities without their formal consent. They contend that the 180-day deadline may be insufficient for a thorough environmental and title review of the parcels, potentially creating unresolved legal complications for valid existing rights holders such as grazing or easement holders. Critics also argue that individual tribe-specific land transfer bills bypass the standard administrative process under the Indian Reorganization Act, setting a precedent that circumvents established regulatory review.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority over tribal affairs under the Indian Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and its plenary power over federal lands. No active constitutional tension from the provided case list directly applies; trust land transfers for recognized tribes are a well-established exercise of congressional authority, and the gaming prohibition aligns with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act framework.
Checks and balances
Congress directs the transfer by statute; the Secretary of the Interior implements it and retains administrative authority over the trust land; the gaming prohibition is enforced by the National Indian Gaming Commission under existing law.
Historical precedent
Congress has regularly passed individual tribe land-into-trust transfer bills, such as the Wilton Rancheria Restoration Act (2009) and numerous similar measures, as an alternative to the administrative process under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934.