August 27, 2026.
Tribe alleges county changed course after land purchase, blocking proposed airport access and undermining planned development.
The Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians has sued Riverside County California accusing the county and numerous county officials of fraudulently inducing the Tribe to invest approximately $12 million in property next to Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport in Thermal, California, and then changing its policy to prevent the Tribe from obtaining the airport access it says was central to the investment.
The federal lawsuit, filed Aug. 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, names Riverside County, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and individual county officials as defendants. The case is Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside et al., No. 5:26-cv-04833. Court records identify the case as an “Other Fraud” action and show that the Tribe has demanded a jury trial.
The allegations have not been proven in court. No judgment has been entered, and the county defendants have not yet had their claims adjudicated.
Tribe says airport access was central to investment.
According to the lawsuit and earlier public documents, the Twenty-Nine Palms Band acquired roughly 611 to 612 acres immediately adjacent to Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport.
A project document submitted to the City of Palm Desert describes the Tribe's acquisition as involving 611 acres obtained through the federal Base Realignment and Closure process. The document says the Tribe planned to develop transportation and airport-related infrastructure and had been working with Riverside County airport officials on efforts involving U.S. Customs and Border Protection and international aviation.
The Tribe's current lawsuit focuses on Through-the-Fence, or TTF, access. Such arrangements can allow owners of property immediately outside an airport to establish controlled access for aircraft and related operations between their property and the airport.
The Tribe alleges it spent $12 million on the property with the expectation that it could negotiate a TTF arrangement that would allow commercial aviation activity to connect the site to the county-owned airport.
The lawsuit alleges the Tribe subsequently spent more than a year attempting to negotiate an agreement involving the county, the Tribe and 29 Aviation LLC, a charter company associated with the Tribe.
According to the complaint, those discussions changed in 2025, when the county moved toward a policy that would prevent new commercial TTF agreements.
County adopts new TTF policy.
Riverside County's public records confirm that the Board of Supervisors considered and adopted Resolution No. 2025-230 on Aug. 26, 2025.
The official Board of Supervisors proceedings identify the measure as a resolution “Declaring the County's Position on Through-the-Fence (TTF) Access at County-Owned Airports.” The item was approved as recommended.
Contemporary reporting on the board meeting indicates the measure was aimed at prohibiting new commercial TTF arrangements at county-owned airports, including Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport.
County aviation officials argued that commercial TTF arrangements could create financial and regulatory risks, including potential conflicts with Federal Aviation Administration grant assurances and competition with businesses that operate from airport property. County Airports Director Angela Jamison told supervisors that the county could face significant financial consequences if TTF arrangements jeopardized federal aviation funding.
The county's position contrasts sharply with the Tribe's interpretation of the situation.
The Tribe alleges that Riverside County had previously allowed negotiations concerning airport access to proceed and that the county's later action effectively pulled the foundation out from under the land investment.
The complaint characterizes the county's conduct as a “government-engineered bait-and-switch.” That is an allegation made by the Tribe, not a judicial finding.
Dispute over FAA rules.
A central issue in the case is whether federal aviation requirements actually required Riverside County to prohibit the proposed TTF arrangement.
During the 2025 Board of Supervisors hearing, county officials raised concerns about FAA requirements and potential impacts on federal funding.
But representatives supporting the Tribe's proposal argued that the FAA does not categorically prohibit TTF agreements.
According to reporting from the 2025 hearing, attorney Marc Nichols, a former FAA chief counsel who was retained by the Tribe, told supervisors that hundreds of FAA-approved TTF arrangements exist nationwide and that some involve commercial aviation operators. He argued that the proposed arrangement could be structured to comply with federal requirements.
The Tribe now alleges in federal court that Riverside County's blanket approach was unnecessary and that the county could have evaluated and negotiated an individual agreement subject to appropriate restrictions.
Existing airport access is another point of contention
The lawsuit also points to an existing TTF arrangement involving the H.N. and Frances C. Berger Foundation.
The Berger Foundation had donated property associated with the sheriff's aviation operation at Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport. During the 2025 debate, a foundation representative argued that TTF access could benefit the broader community and said the airport should not operate in a way that benefits only established private aviation interests.
The Tribe alleges the existence of the Berger arrangement demonstrated that airport access from adjacent property could be managed through negotiated conditions, fees and county oversight.
That allegation is important to the Tribe's discrimination claims because it argues that the county treated its proposed commercial access differently from an existing arrangement involving another property owner.
Tribe alleges six causes of action.
The federal complaint brings six principal claims against the county and officials, according to reporting on the lawsuit and the court docket.
They include allegations of:
- fraudulent inducement;
- regulatory taking;
- racial discrimination in contracting;
- violation of equal protection;
- violation of substantive due process; and
- fraud.
The civil-rights claim is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the case is classified by the federal court docket as an “Other Fraud” matter.
The Tribe argues that the county's decision not only prevented the proposed airport connection but substantially damaged the economic value and development potential of the property.
It is asking the court to invalidate the county's TTF resolution, recover the $12 million purchase price and lost development value, obtain compensation for the alleged regulatory taking, and recover attorney fees and other relief.
The airport property was part of a larger economic development strategy
The dispute comes against the backdrop of a broader economic-development effort by the Twenty-Nine Palms Band.
A project document presented to the City of Palm Desert describes the airport-adjacent property as part of a larger transportation and infrastructure strategy. It says the Tribe completed geotechnical, archaeological and hazardous-material assessments, established water infrastructure and worked on transportation improvements around the airport.
The same document says the Tribe had been working with Riverside County airport management on an application involving U.S. Customs and Border Protection and had pursued a Foreign Trade Zone designation involving tribal and county property.
The Tribe's website describes the Twenty-Nine Palms Band as a federally recognized Native American tribe whose members descend from the Chemehuevi people. The Tribe operates governmental and economic-development programs in the Coachella Valley and elsewhere in Southern California.
Earlier relationship with the airport.
The Tribe's relationship with Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport predates the current lawsuit.
In 2018, the Four Winds Tribal Coalition — which included the Twenty-Nine Palms Band — formally withdrew from the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport Authority. In its notice, the coalition said it believed the airport would be better served as an advisory committee providing input to Riverside County, which owns, operates and funds the facility.
That history provides additional context for the current dispute, although it does not determine whether the county acted unlawfully in adopting Resolution 2025-230.
What happens next.
The lawsuit was filed only days ago, and the case is at its earliest stage. The federal docket shows the complaint and civil cover sheet were filed Aug. 24, 2026, with attorney Thomas Peter O'Brien representing the Tribe.
The court has not ruled on the Tribe's allegations.
The central questions will likely include what Riverside County represented to the Tribe before the land purchase, what the parties understood about potential airport access, whether the proposed TTF arrangement could have complied with FAA requirements, whether the county's 2025 policy was lawfully adopted and applied, and whether the Tribe was treated differently from similarly situated property owners.
The case also raises a broader question about airport development in Riverside County: whether commercial aviation facilities located immediately outside county-owned airports should be permitted to connect directly to airport infrastructure, and under what conditions.
For now, the $12 million land investment and the county's decision to prohibit new commercial TTF agreements have become the center of a federal dispute between the Twenty-Nine Palms Band and Riverside County — one that could determine not only the future of the Tribe's airport-adjacent property but also how the county approaches through-the-fence development at its airports.
Case: Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, et al., U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 5:26-cv-04833.
