Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 provides: “The.

Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 provides: “The.

Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 provides: “The

Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to acquire, through purchase, relinquishment, gift, exchange, or assignment, any interest in lands, water rights, or surface rights to land…for the purpose of providing land for Indians.” 25 U.S.C. section 465. The statute makes two million dollars per year available to the Secretary for this purpose. The Secretary decided to use her authority under section 425 to acquire 150 acres of land in the State of Washington. The tract would be held in trust for the benefit of a federally recognized tribe that intended to construct and operate a casino on that site. The state government opposed this project, because Indian lands are exempt from state property taxes and because it did not support an expansion of legalized gambling in Washington.

The state brought suit against the Secretary, alleging that section 5 violates the nondelegation doctrine. Does the state have judicial standing to challenge the Secretary’s decision? What is the state’s legal challenge and argument?

If the district judge agreed with the state’s argument of delegation authority and no limits in the statute, then the Secretary can file an appeal. What is her legal basis? How can she argue that the delegation is legally sound? What would be the legal result?