Here are the State’s briefs at least in McCracken and Amick, Inc. v. Perdue, the appeal of a trial judge’s decision in North Carolina finding it unconstitutional under state law for the State to enter into gaming compacts with tribes but not with other citizens of the State. The lower court opinion is here.
6 thoughts on “Materials in North Carolina Gaming Case”
Comments are closed.
Turtle Talk 
The decision of the local Court in NC actually seems to base its decision on IGRA, which aonly allows those foirms of Class III gaming as is allowed, in some form, within the State where the territory is located.
For example, NY outlaws “slot machines”. The Vidoe Lottery machines in NY get around that by being “lottery” machines rather than “slot machines”.
Because the VLTs are outlawed in NC, they are not as permitted form of Class III Gaming for the Cherokees in NC.
(d) Class III gaming activities; authorization; revocation; Tribal-State compact
(1) Class III gaming activities shall be lawful on Indian lands only if such activities are—
(A) authorized by an ordinance or resolution that—
(i) is adopted by the governing body of the Indian tribe having jurisdiction over such lands,
(ii) meets the requirements of subsection (b) of this section, and
(iii) is approved by the Chairman,
(B) located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity, and
(C) conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the State under paragraph (3) that is in effect.
Well, whatever’s “allowed” is whatever’s negotiated in the compact. N. Carolina perhaps didn’t have to consent to VTLs in the compact, but they did.
I don’t doubt that the State may have authorized VLT’s in the Compact, but if it is prohibited under State Law, then it is not authorized under Federal Law. IGRA is ultimately the controlling law.
Thsi action may have been brought in Federal Court, but since it is a declaritory judgment action, I presume the State Court had jurisdiction at least over the State Government, but not the Tribe.
The big problem is that the State Trial Court’s decision is not well fleshed out.
Still, many compacts in many states allow kinds of gaming that are technically prohibited under state law. Michigan prohibited slots from 1993-1998, but tribes still had them under the compact. Are you suggesting that those compacts are all invalid? Doubt that was the intent under IGRA.
I am suggesting that any state that authorizes a particular gaming activity which is otherwise prohibited (as opposed to regulated) by the State, then that State has certainly opened itself to an action by taxpayers seeking to invalidate the compact. This is what was attempted and failed in New York in Dalton v. Pataki, 5 N.Y.3d 243, 264 (2005). The same approach appears to have been taken in NC with more success.
In years past, we have discussed how to get around the “slot machine” prohibition in NY, but it would have required the amendment of the NY Penal Law by the legislature.