Proposed federal legislation that would restore certain land-holding rights to American Indian tribes has casino-phobic Amador County supervisors joining an opposition movement.

A February decision of the U.S. Supreme court held that a Massachusetts tribe formed after 1934 had no right to have land taken into trust for it by the federal government.

Now, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is being urged to do all in her power to prevent what is viewed by supervisors and by the California State Association of Counties as an attempt to speed through legislation effectively overruling the court decision before the current session of Congress ends Dec. 31.

Authored by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., Senate Bill 1703 would amend the federal Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 to apply the Act to all federally recognized Indian tribes, regardless of when a tribe became recognized, and re-extend to all tribes the right - effectively stripped by the Supreme Court - to have land taken into trust for them by the federal government.

The court's decision in Carcieri v. Salazar was viewed as a blow to hopes of two local American Indian tribes - both formed more recently than 1934 - to build casinos in Amador County between Plymouth and Ione. Both Amador and the association of counties are appealing in writing to Feinstein for action against the Dorgan bill, which effectively would circumvent the court decision.

"With a limited number of days remaining in the current session of Congress, it is our understanding that SB 1703 could be attached to another vehicle on the floor of the Senate as a means to facilitate the bill's passage," Amador's letter reads in part. "We strongly urge you to oppose this maneuver and to work with your colleagues to seek a full, transparent Senate debate not on the merits of SB 1703 but also on the broader policy implications arising from the Carcieri decision."

Under U.S. law, federally recognized American Indian tribes on land held in trust for them by the federal government are sovereign nations. As such, they can plan and execute construction projects, such as casinos, simply by following federal planning guidelines, whose public notice-and-comment requirements don't match typical county planning procedures. Despite the fact that tribal lands might lie within a county's borders, a county government has no say in the affairs, for example construction projects, of a sovereign tribe.

The somewhat difficult legal concept of tribal sovereignty has been subject to misunderstanding or simple dismissal as un-American by many U.S. citizens and to outright opposition in court by well-funded litigants seeking to overturn the doctrine.