Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians v. Blanche

Twenty-Nine Palms · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 6, 2026 · No. 25-2340

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in an action challenging the placement of the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians on the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act’s non-compliant list. The court held that the Tribe’s remote sales to other California tribes were off-reservation conduct subject to California’s cigarette licensing and tax laws, that the sales were delivery sales to consumers under the PACT Act, and that the Tribe violated applicable requirements. The court also rejected the Tribe’s procedural challenges concerning notice, agency explanation, and evidentiary support.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Richard C. Tallman; John B. Owens; Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, sitting by designation
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
May 6, 2026
Docket number
25-2340
Procedural posture
The Tribe brought an Administrative Procedure Act action challenging ATF's decision to place it on the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act's non-compliant list. The Central District of California granted ATF's motion for summary judgment, and the Tribe appealed.
Standard of review
The court reviewed de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment and reviewed ATF's agency action under the APA's arbitrary-and-capricious and contrary-to-law standards.
Precedential value
published and precedential
Parties
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe doing business as Twenty-Nine Palms Distribution v. Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General, 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 and Explosives
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

indian affairstribal sovereigntyadministrative procedure actjudicial review of agency actiontax

Practice areas

Administrative lawFederal Indian lawTribal sovereigntyTobacco taxation and licensingAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Tribe's remote cigarette sales to businesses owned by other tribes constituted off-reservation conduct subject to California's generally applicable cigarette licensing and tax laws.
  2. Whether the Tribe's tribal-business customers were consumers under the PACT Act because they were not lawfully operating as licensed retailers or distributors.
  3. Whether the Tribe violated the PACT Act's delivery-seller requirements by selling untaxed cigarettes without a distributor license and to unlicensed entities.
  4. Whether ATF violated the PACT Act or APA by providing inadequate notice, failing to adequately explain its listing decision, or relying on insufficient evidence.
  5. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to ATF.

Holdings

  1. Remote sales from one tribe to another are off-reservation activities subject to nondiscriminatory state laws of general application. Accordingly, the Tribe's remote cigarette sales to other tribes were subject to California's Cigarette and Tobacco Products Tax Law and Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act.
  2. The Tribe's Native Nation Customers were consumers under the PACT Act because they were not lawfully operating as retailers or distributors under California law.
  3. The Tribe violated the PACT Act because, as a delivery seller, it failed to comply with California licensing and tax laws when it sold untaxed cigarettes purchased from out of state without a distributor license and to mostly unlicensed tribal retailers.
  4. ATF did not violate the PACT Act or APA procedural requirements. Its notice identified the relevant PACT Act provisions and specific reasons, its decision adequately explained the legal and factual basis for listing, and the administrative record contained sufficient evidence.

Key quotations

“remote sales from one tribe to another are “‘off reservation’ activit[ies] subject to non-discriminatory state laws of general application.”” (12)
“Because the Tribe violates applicable California law, it violates the PACT Act, and is therefore subject to inclusion on the non-compliant list.” (17)
“ATF did not violate the procedural requirements of the PACT Act or the APA.” (21)

Factual background

Twenty-Nine Palms, a federally recognized tribe, remotely sold cigarettes purchased from an out-of-state wholesaler to businesses owned by other California tribes and located on their reservations. The Tribe did not hold a California distributor license, and most of its tribal-business customers lacked the required distributor or retail licenses; no one in the distribution chain collected California cigarette taxes. ATF determined that the sales were off-reservation activities subject to California law, that the customers were consumers under the PACT Act because they were not lawfully operating, and that the Tribe violated the PACT Act by failing to comply with California licensing and tax requirements.

Procedural history

ATF notified the Tribe that it was considering placing the Tribe on the PACT Act non-compliant list based on alleged violations of federal and California cigarette laws. After further notice and review, ATF placed the Tribe on the list effective March 10, 2025. The district court granted summary judgment to ATF, concluding that the listing decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law and that ATF followed required procedures. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ninth Circuit