Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians v. Babbitt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• calling Interior’s view “unduly restrictive” considering “the plain meaning of the statute, the statutory context, and the principle of liberal construction in favor of Indians”
• rejecting argument that “only lands which were restored to the tribe as part of the act of restoring the tribe to federal recognition would qualify”
• restating the Government’s position as “‘restoration of lands’ means only restoration of lands by Congress contemporaneous with the restoration of federal recognition, or in some other way connected to the Congressional act of restoration”
• “The Solicitor’s opinion states that ‘restored lands’ . . . include only those lands that are available to a restored tribe as part of its restoration to federal recognition.”
• “The defendants’ ‘special meaning’ argument seem to proceed, not from the special meaning Congress gave to the word ‘restoration’ (because it did not), but merely from the fact that Congress used the word at all.”
• “The varying [interpretive] possibilities highlight the ambiguity of section 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).