LARISA

It’s the Narragansett Indians 3, Rhode Island 0, and the state will get its final at bat before the U.S. Supreme Court early next month in a high-stakes legal case that could place 31 acres in federal trust for the tribe.

And who’s best equipped to deliver a grand slam for the state and ensure the land remains in Rhode Island’s control is at the heart of a nasty dispute?

Governor Carcieri backs a high-profile Washington, D.C., lawyer. The Town of Charlestown, where the land sits, supports its Indian affairs lawyer. And yesterday the chief justice of the state’s highest court weighed in.

On Nov. 3, the state and the town will challenge the U.S. Department of Interior’s right to place the land in trust for the Narragansett tribe before the Supreme Court. Though the state and town have been joined in opposition throughout the 10-year life of the case, they have battled recently about which lawyer would be best for the job.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied requests that more than one lawyer be allowed to argue for the state, leaving it to the attorney general, Charlestown and the governor to decide.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Frank J. Williams threw his support behind Charlestown’s assistant solicitor on Indian affairs Joseph S. Larisa Jr. yesterday.

“He’s one of our best appellate lawyers,” Williams said. “Joe Larisa would be a superb advocate for not only the town’s position, but the state’s position.”

Williams said he conveyed his support for Larisa to Carcieri and Lynch based on the town solicitor’s involvement in the case since it began nearly a decade ago. “No one can do it better.”

Larisa, meanwhile, sent a letter to the U.S. Supreme Court clerk yesterday saying the parties had reached an “unresolvable impasse” over the question of who should argue. He proposed the issue be resolved by a coin toss — a suggestion Lynch rejects and Carcieri abhors.

“We don’t think it’s appropriate to engage in a coin toss with a part-time solicitor of a town,” said Michael J. Healey, spokesman for the attorney general’s office. He added: “The only thing that has made this the controversy that is it is Joe Larisa’s ego, which is astounding.”

Though Lynch initially sought argument time for his office, he, like Carcieri, now backs former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson as the best pick.

“In an effort to forge a consensus, we would be willing to have Mr. Olson argue the case so we can put all this craziness behind us,” Healey said.

Olson has tried 50 cases before the high court, including the one that resolved the 2000 presidential election in George W. Bush’s favor. Carcieri hired Olson for $200,000 shortly after the high court agreed to hear the state’s appeal in February.

“[Carcieri] would be hard-pressed to find any legal scholar who has that experience, knowledge and understanding,” said Amy Kempe, the governor’s spokeswoman.

Not so for Larisa, who asserts he is the most qualified since he has been involved in the case since it was first launched by Governor Almond.

Supreme Court rules allot each side a half-hour for oral argument and specify that only one lawyer on each side will be heard, unless the court rules otherwise.

When parties can’t agree, the court does not typically designate who should argue, according to a guide on practicing before the Supreme Court. The clerk’s office advises counsel that if they cannot agree, the matter should be resolved by drawing lots — a prospect that generally seems to produce agreement.

Carcieri’s chief legal counsel, Kernan F. King, sent an e-mail to Larisa and Lynch late yesterday proposing a two-way coin toss tomorrow before retired Supreme Court Chief Justice Joseph R. Weisberger. Larisa would flip a coin first with the governor’s office and, if he won, again with the attorney general’s office, Larisa said.

“It’s not our choice. It’s not our decision. It doesn’t change our position that Ted Olson is the best person to argue the case,” Kempe said. But absent a consensus, it comes down to a coin toss or the state not arguing at all, she said.

Larisa said he will reject the toss because it stacks the odds unfairly against him.

Healey repeated Lynch’s objections. “Whatever agreement [Kernan] has made with Joe we haven’t signed on to,” Healey said, adding of Larisa that “It’s like we’re dealing with an oppositional, defiant toddler right now.”

The Narragansett tribe bought the property, just north of Route 1, in 1991 as a housing site for its poor elderly members. The tribe successfully petitioned the federal Interior Department to take the land into trust. The state filed suit after the federal agency agreed to do so in 1998.

Trust status would free the property from most state and local laws, placing it under tribal and federal control. State and local officials fear it would clear the way for the tribe to build a casino or some other venture outside of state oversight.

In the case that has been closely watched by tribes and states nationwide, the state and Charlestown have argued the federal government cannot take land into trust for tribes recognized after the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, unless Congress specifically authorized it. The Narragansetts became a federally recognized tribe in 1983.

To date, the state and town have lost in U.S. District Court, before a federal appeals panel and again before the full 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. Larisa has been part of the team that has argued each step of the case.

“When the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case, it was obviously terrific for the State of Rhode Island. We firmly believe it’s a state’s rights issue,” Healey, the attorney general’s spokesman, said. “It’s not like the state’s legal position has prevailed up to this point. … That’s not a record to toot your horn about.”

That misses the point, Larisa says. The high court only agreed to hear 80 of the 5,000 appeals filed last year, so the state achieved a major victory by getting before the court at all, he said. He added that the court reverses lower court rulings in 60 percent of the cases it hears.

“If you want to talk about winning and how we got to where we are, it wasn’t the work of Mr. Olson or anyone in the attorney general’s office,” he said. (The court did not agree to consider an aspect of the case that was argued by the attorney general’s office.)

The state has until Oct. 31 to make its pick.

kmulvane@projo.com