Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Sean McMaster

── Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Sean McMaster ── Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Date: May 22, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 15, 2025 Decided May 22, 2026 No. 24-5193 NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE, APPELLANT v. SEAN MCMASTER, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, APPELLEE Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:22-cv-02299) Elizabeth T. Walker argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant. Kaitlyn E. Klass was on the brief for amicus curiae United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund in support of appellant.  2 Dimitar P. Georgiev, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for appellee. On the brief were Jeanine Ferris Pirro, U.S. Attorney, and Jane M. Lyons and Bradley G. Silverman, Assistant U.S. Attorneys. Katherine C. Sadeck, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Rhode Island, entered an appearance. Before: MILLETT, WALKER and PAN, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT. MILLETT, Circuit Judge: The State of Rhode Island has been reconstructing a bridge on Interstate 95 in Providence, Rhode Island for more than a decade. Because the Federal Highway Administration has provided federal funding for the construction, the State’s project must comply with the National Historic Preservation Act (“Preservation Act”), 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq. The Preservation Act requires federal agencies funding a state project to “take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property.” Id. § 306108. Though it was not known at the time I-95 was first built in the 1950s, the construction disturbed an area that contains archaeological resources dating back at least 5,000 years and a site that has cultural and religious significance to the Narragansett Indian Tribe. That area is now known as the Providence Covelands Archaeological District (“Covelands”), a site that is eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. J.A. 149. When Rhode Island sought federal funds to reconstruct aging parts of the I-95 bridge, the Federal Highway Administration determined that the project would have “adverse effects” on the Covelands, and so mitigation efforts had to be implemented.  3 This case involves a challenge to those mitigation measures. The Narragansett Tribe alleges that the Highway Administration’s decision adopting certain mitigation strategies is (1) contrary to law both because the Tribe was not adequately consulted and because a tribal official was not included as a required signatory to the agreement implementing those strategies, and (2) arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed to explain changes it had made. The district court granted summary judgment for the Highway Administration, and the Tribe has appealed. We affirm. While the Narragansett Tribe has standing, it does not succeed on the merits. The Preservation Act’s implementing regulations do not require that a tribal officer sign a programmatic agreement when, as here, the affected land is not tribal land and the mitigation measures take place both off tribal land and off land that is controlled by or being transferred to a Tribe. In addition, the Highway Administration adequately consulted with the Tribe on the development of mitigation strategies, and it acknowledged and reasonably explained the changes it made to the final programmatic agreement. I A Congress enacted the Historic Preservation Act in 1966 to protect historic sites that would otherwise be threatened by federally fund