Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians v. Blanche

── Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 06, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TWENTY-NINE PALMS BAND OF No. 25-2340 MISSION INDIANS, a Federally D.C. No. Recognized Indian Tribe doing 5:24-cv-00379- business as Twenty-Nine Palms SSS-SP Distribution, Plaintiff - Appellant, OPINION v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General; DOJ - UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; STEVEN DETTELBACH, Director, U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, in his official capacity; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF ALCOHOL TOBACCO FIREARMS & EXPLOSIVES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Sunshine Suzanne Sykes, District Judge, Presiding 2 TWENTY-NINE PALMS BAND OF MISSION INDIANS V. BLANCHE Argued and Submitted February 18, 2026 El Centro, California Filed May 6, 2026 Before: Richard C. Tallman and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges, and Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, District Judge.* Opinion by Judge Tallman SUMMARY** Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act / California Law The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) in an action brought by the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians—a federally recognized tribe in southern California that sells cigarettes exclusively to other California tribes— challenging ATF’s decision to place the Tribe on the non- compliant list under the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (“PACT”) Act for selling cigarettes in violation of California law. The PACT Act requires any persons engaged in the sale, transfer, or shipment of cigarettes into a state or Indian * The Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  TWENTY-NINE PALMS BAND OF MISSION INDIANS V. BLANCHE 3 country that taxes cigarettes to register with the ATF and file monthly reports. The Act also requires any person (including Indian tribes) making a “delivery sale” into a state to comply with that state’s cigarette laws. The Act establishes a non- compliant list of known delivery sellers who fail to comply with the Act. The panel held that ATF did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by placing the Tribe on the non-compliant list. First, the Tribe’s remote cigarette sales to other tribes are off-reservation conduct to which California’s Cigarette and Tobacco Products Tax Law (the “Tax Law”) and Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act (the “Licensing Act”) apply. Second, the Tribe’s off- reservation sales to Native Nation Customers—tribal businesses that sell cigarettes to individual consumers on their respective reservations—are delivery sales to consumers under the PACT Act and subject the Tribe to the PACT Act’s delivery seller requirements. Third, the Tribe violated the PACT Act’s delivery seller requirements. As a delivery seller, the Tribe must comply with state laws applicable to the sale of cigarettes. The Tribe violated California’s Tax Law and Licensing Act when the Tribe sold untaxed cigarettes, purchased from out of state, to more than fifty tribal retailers without a distributor license. Because the Tribe violated applicable California law, it violated the PACT Act, and was therefore subject to inclusion on the non-compliant list. Finally, the panel held that ATF did not violate the procedural requirements of the PACT Act or the APA, and rejected the