Pamunkey Councilmen Jeff Brown, left, and Gary Miles, hold a deer as their former Chief, Kevin Brown, presents it to Gov. Tim Kaine, second from left, during the annual tax tribute from the Virginia Indians in Richmond, Nov. 25, 2009. Alexa Welch Edlund/AP/Richmond Times-Dispatch

‘Look at any opportunity’

Stand Up for California and its director Cheryl Schmit have argued that the Pamunkey, whose land is surrounded by the Pamunkey River, have never functioned as a political unit, and are not descended from Indian ancestors. Their website says the group's mission is to “educate lawmakers, law enforcement, local governments and citizens about the cultural, economic and political impacts of state and tribal government gaming.” The IBIA said the appellant is required to provide documentation of its “interested party” status — explain its own relevance to the case — before any ruling is issued that would either uphold or reverse recognition of Pamunkey federal status. Within the Department of the Interior but separate from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the IBIA hears appeals on wide-ranging legal issues concerning Native American tribes, land and administration. Its decisions can be appealed to U.S. district courts.

The state of Virginia has recognized 11 tribes, with a combined total of some 5,000 members. Only the Pamunkey and the Mattaponi have designated reservations, and no other Virginia tribe has federal recognition. While recognition is indefinitely delayed pending IBIA proceedings, Chief Gray is confident the board will rule in the tribe’s favor. “The appeal has no substance,” Gray, who took over in late June, told Al Jazeera. “Our petition is one of the strongest they’ve ever seen.” When asked whether the tribe would open a casino if given federal recognition, as suggested by documents uncovered by the Washington Post, he responded: “We’ll look at any opportunity we’re eligible to pursue. But I don’t know yet whether or not that’s a viable option,” he added, saying it would need to be discussed with the tribe’s members. He stated that “health care, education, and help with pursuing economic opportunities” were the main benefits of recognition. However, Chief Gray said that Schmit had filed earlier formal comments in partnership with MGM, adding he wasn’t sure why MGM was no longer involved in the process. MGM Resorts spokesperson Yvette Monet said the company supports tribal gaming, and explained MGM’s change of heart: “We raised a concern about the Pamunkey recognition to urge careful study of all important factors in consideration of new applications for acknowledgment. The Pamunkey subsequently addressed that concern.” Stand Up for California's Schmit has continued to press forward in opposition, arguing, “Why wouldn’t a tribe seek to open a casino? It is an economic engine that greatly enhances a tribal government's self-determination.” “In the case of the Pamunkey, Interior did not follow its own requirements. Failure to do so creates an inequitable practice,” Schmit told Al Jazeera via email. “Moreover, it creates the potential of creating tribes for the sole purpose of a casino ‘for gaming investors.’”

‘Authority over its members’

In the original July recognition ruling, the Department of the Interior’s Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Kevin K. Washburn certified that the Pamunkey had “submitted more than sufficient evidence to satisfy each of the seven mandatory criteria for acknowledgment set forth in the regulations … meets the requirements for a government-to-government relationship with the United States.” But prior third-party comment as a part of the long process for recognition included a joint statement in 2014 by Stand Up for California and MGM calling for standards that “are sufficiently 'objective' for establishing that an American Indian group exists as an Indian Tribe.” The government rebuked such arguments, declaring that the tribe does indeed have a history of functioning as a single polity. The document states that “evidence in the record is voluminous and extraordinary...shows external observers identified the Pamunkey petitioner as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis.” Like many other tribes, many Pamunkey members have traditionally lived off of the reservation, and not all descendants of the tribe are registered as members today. However, the government rejected claims that assimilation by some Pamunkey people in any way lessened the group’s basis for federal recognition. “The extensive record provided significant evidence of regular elections of chiefs and councils throughout the 19th and 20th centuries,” the determination reads. “The highly detailed records from the 20th century also demonstrate that the group managed its own affairs and exercised political influence and authority over its members.” The Pamunkey reservation was historically referred to as “Pamunkey Island,” “Indian town,” and “Indian Island,” even if a significant contingent of non-Indians resided in the area. Non-Pamunkey Indians often intermarried with the group, but Pamunkey leaders maintained control in the settlement. The government also said evidence “demonstrates that all of its current 208 members (100 percent) document descent from members of the historical Pamunkey Indian tribe.” Nedra Darling, spokesperson for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, said her department had given the final determination but would not discuss the case pending the appeal.

‘A piece in the history’