Here.
WaPo Article on Wyoming’s Fight against the EPA and Tribal Sovereignty
Here.
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Fletcher Paper on the Seminole Tribe and the Origins of Indian Gaming
At the invitation of Alex Pearl and the FIU Law Review to write a symposium piece on Florida Indian history and law, a challenge for me since I know very little about it, I came up with “The Seminole Tribe and the Origins of Indian Gaming.” Assuming the law review finds it publishable, it will appear in the FIU Law Review alongside the work of luminaries like Siegfriend Weissner and Sarah Krakoff.
Here is the abstract:
The Seminole Tribe of Florida has played perhaps the most important role in the origins and development of Indian gaming in the United States of any single tribe. The tribe opened the first tribally owned high stakes bingo hall in 1979. The tribe in 1981 was involved in one of the earliest lower court decisions forming the basis of the legal theory excluding most states from the regulation of high stakes bingo, a theory that Congress largely codified in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) years later. The tribe was a party to the Supreme Court decision in 1996 that radically altered the bargaining power between tribes and states over the negotiation and regulation of casino-style gaming under IGRA. And more recently, the tribe has been a leading participant in negotiations and litigation over the regulatory landscape of Indian gaming after the 1996 decision. The Tribe is one of the most successful Indian gaming tribes in the nation.
This paper traces that history, but also offers thoughts on how the culture and traditional governance structures of the Seminole Tribe played a part in its leadership role in the arena of Indian gaming.
2nd Annual Tribal Lands Conference @ the University of Arizona
Here:
Online registration for attorneys and state and federal employees is available at:
Online registration for Indian land owners/allottees, tribal leaders, tribal employees, students, and university faculty and staff is available at:
Colorado COA Dismisses Colorado AG’s Appeal of Cash Advance Matter
Al Jazeera Article on Indian Law and Commission Report
Here.
Federal Court Declines to Dismiss City of Duluth v. NIGC on Standing Grounds
Here is the opinion in City of Duluth v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. D.C.):
DCT order Denying NIGC Motion to Dismiss
Briefs are here:
Complaint here.
Nooksack Issues TRO in Nooksack Tribal Christmas Checks Dispute with Proposed Disenrollees
Here are the new materials in St. Germaine v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):
St Germain v Kelly Brief in Support of TRO Relief
St Germain v Kelly Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Motion for TRO
St Germain v Kelly Order Granting Motion for TRO
An excerpt from the order:
Therefore, the Court finds that, at this preliminary TRO stage in this matter, the Defendants have violated the Nooksack Indian Tribe’s Constitution, Article IX and the Equal Protection clause of the Indian Civil Rights Act in passing Resolution 13-171 and acting upon it. The Court orders that the Defendants be enjoined from treating the proposed disenrollees differently from other tribal members with respect to the Christmas Support distribution. However, the Court finds that the Court cannot order specific relief requiring the expenditure of tribal funds. The Court hopes, however, that the Defendants will consider the implications of Resolution 13-171 and treat the Plaintiff proposed-disenrollees fairly, despite the fact that the Court is prohibited by the law from ordering them to do so.
North Carolina Sues Western Sky
Here is the complaint in State of North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. Western Sky Financial LLC (N.C. Super.):
An excerpt:
1. This is an action for injunctive relief to restrain Defendants Western Sky Financial, LLC (“Western Sky”), CashCall, Inc. (“CashCall”), WS Funding, LLC (“WS Funding”), Delbert Services Corporation (“Delbert”), and John Paul Reddam (“Mr. Reddam”), (collectively, “Defendants”) from offering, funding, servicing and collecting on illegal usurious consumer loans made to North Carolina borrowers, in violation of North Carolina’s Consumer Finance Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-164, et seq.; North Carolina’s usury laws, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 24-1, et seq.; and North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, et seq.; and to obtain restitution and other relief.
2. CashCall, WS Funding, and Delbert are affiliated companies that make, fund, purchase, service, and collect on illegal loans to North Carolina consumers that accrue interest at rates far in excess of those allowed under North Carolina law. These Defendants seek to evade the State of North Carolina’s licensure, usury, and consumer protection laws by using as a front an unrelated fourth company, Western Sky. Western Sky falsely holds itself out as an Indian tribal entity that purports to be exempt from state laws under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. In reality, Western Sky is a for-profit South Dakota company that is owned by an individual who happens to be a member of an Indian tribe. Western Sky is not owned or operated by any Indian tribe or for the benefit of any tribe; therefore, the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to the loans made to North Carolina borrowers.3. CashCall is the real or “de facto” lender in these loan transactions, and it controls virtually all aspects of the transactions. Pursuant to its arrangement with Western Sky, among other activities, CashCall, itself or through its subsidiaries, creates and distributes advertising materials for the loans; reviews all loan applications for underwriting requirements; funds the loans; assumes all risk of loss on the loans; receives all payments on the loans; services the loans; and indemnifies Western Sky for all costs and any liability associated with the loans.4. Based on these facts, regulators and courts have concluded that “Western Sky is nothing more than a front to enable CashCall to evade licensure by state agencies and to exploit Indian Tribal Sovereign Immunity to shield its deceptive business practices from prosecution by state and federal regulators.” In re CashCall, Inc., John Paul Reddam, President and CEO of Cash Call, Inc. and WS Funding, LLC, State of New Hampshire Banking Department, Case No.: 12-308 (June 4, 2013).
5. Since 2010, at least fourteen states, on relation of the respective State’s Attorney General or through the State’s banking or consumer credit regulator, have taken action against Defendants for unlawfully making loans without proper state licensure and in violation of state usury and consumer protection laws.
Sixth Circuit Reverses in Michigan v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe
Here is the opinion:
An excerpt:
Because the State is not suing to enjoin a class III gaming activity, but instead a trust submission under MILCSA, § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) of IGRA does not abrogate the Tribe’s sovereign immunity, and the district court lacked jurisdiction. The issue of whether class III gaming on the casino property will violate IGRA if the Tribe’s MILCSA trust submission is successful is not ripe for adjudication because it depends on contingent future events that may never occur. The injunction was therefore not properly entered.
Briefs are here.
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.