Brown

Is the Governor of California a “public agency” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)? In this case, which involves the Governor’s concurrence in a federal determination under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ( 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.) that a new Indian gaming establishment in Madera County would not be detrimental to the surrounding community, we conclude the answer is no. Accordingly, as we will explain, the trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrers here and we therefore affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

For our purposes, the relevant facts—which are drawn from the allegations in the first amended petition for writ of mandate and complaint—may be stated as follows:

Plaintiff Picayune Ranchería of Chukchansi Indians (the Picayune Tribe) owns and operates a resort and casino on its ranchería lands in Madera County. In 2005, another tribe—the North Fork Ranchería of Mono Indians (the North Fork Tribe)—submitted a request to the United States Department of the Interior asking the department to acquire approximately 305 acres of land in Madera County adjacent to State Route…