Appeals court hears arguments in fight between 2 tribes over Alabama casino built on 'sacred' land

Your support helps us to tell the story

Support Now

Find out moreClose

As your White House correspondent, I ask the tough questions and seek the answers that matter.

Your support enables me to be in the room, pressing for transparency and accountability. Without your contributions, we wouldn't have the resources to challenge those in power.

Your donation makes it possible for us to keep doing this important work, keeping you informed every step of the way to the November election

Andrew Feinberg

White House Correspondent

An appeals court on Wednesday heard arguments in a long-running dispute between two federally recognized tribes over one’s construction of a casino on Alabama land that the other says is a sacred site.

The dispute involves land, known as Hickory Ground, that was home to the Muscogee Nation before removal to Oklahoma on the Trail of Tears. The site is owned by Alabama’s Poarch Band of Creek Indians, a separate tribal nation that shares ancestry with the Muscogee, and that built one of its successful Wind Creek casinos on the site. The Muscogee Nation is appealing a federal judge’s decision to dismiss their lawsuit over the casino construction.

The Muscogee Nation argued that the Alabama tribal officials broke a legal promise to protect the site when they acquired it with the help of a historic preservation grant and instead excavated the remains of 57 Muscogee ancestors to build a casino.

“Hickory Ground is sacred,” Mary Kathryn Nagle, an attorney representing the Muscogee Nation told the three-judge panel. The Muscogee officials asked the appellate court to reinstate their claims that tribal and federal officials and the university that did an archeological work at the site violated The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other federal laws.

The Poarch Band, which maintains their work preserved much of Hickory Ground, depicted the case as an attack on their sovereignty.

Mark Reeves an attorney representing Poarch Band officials, told the panel that the Oklahoma plaintiffs are seeking to control what the Alabama tribe can do on its own land.

“We firmly believe that protecting tribal sovereignty is at the heart of this case,” Reeves said in a statement after court. “The idea that any entity, most especially another tribe, would be allowed to assume control over land it does not own is antithetical to tribal sovereignty and American values.”

The appellate court did not indicate when a decision would be issued.

U.S. Chief Circuit Judge Bill Pryor, a former Alabama attorney general, told Nagle at the start of arguments that he was “pretty sympathetic to many of your concerns here” and had questions about how the district court structured its decision. Circuit Judge Robert J. Luck questioned if the Muscogee Nation was essentially seeking “a veto” over what the Poarch Band could do with the property.

Nagle said they were encouraged by the questions asked by the panel. Members of the Muscogee Nation marched to the Atlanta courthouse ahead of the arguments.

“This is about more than just a legal battle. This is about our ancestors, our cultural identity, and the future of Native rights across the United States,” Muscogee Principal Chief David Hill said.