As Indianz reported, the City of Vancouver’s challenge to the proposed Cowlitz casino, City of Vancouver v. Hogen, has been dismissed on Article III standing grounds in the Western District of Washington. The court likened the City’s injury in fact to a game of chance. 🙂 Here are the materials:
3 thoughts on “Challenge to Cowlitz Casino Dismissed”
Comments are closed.
Turtle Talk 
Matt, curious how this analysis compares to the Cherokee County, KS suit against NIGC et al regarding the Quapaw project in Oklahoma, and the actions by Nebraska in challenging the Northern Ponca project in Iowa. I haven’t studied any of these cases – are they based on different theories or do we have a circuit split here?
Interesting question. I’m not terribly familiar with the other cases, either, but the Cowlitz case is fairly fact-intensive. What I mean is that the standing analysis depended on how much injury the City of Vancouver could allege on the pleadings. It turns out they couldn’t allege much, according the district court. The Ponca case involves an actual sovereign (well, two), Iowa and Nebraska. They have an easier time proving standing (see Mass. v. EPA), so I don’t see a split there.
But the Cowlitz situation raises an interesting problem. In the Wyandotte/Shriner Tract case, the CA10 concluded that once the land goes into trust, federal sovereign immunity under the Quiet Title Act kicks in. And in the Cowlitz case, the City couldn’t sue unless the land goes into trust. It’s a possible catch 22 — but the QTA has a six-year statute of limitations, so maybe not.