The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community announced Tuesday that it would be donating more than $10 million to 18 American Indian tribes across 18 states.
The Shakopee Mdewakanton have donated more than $270 million since 1992 and made more than $500 million in loans to other tribes for economic development projects.
Here.
Here is the opinion in Quantum Entertainment Limited v. Department of the Interior:
Quantum Entertainment v Dept of Interior
Briefs are here.
Lower court materials are here.
INDIAN COUNTRY COMPLETELY SHUT OUT OF NEW MARKETS TAX CREDITS
Not a single Native Community Development Enterprise (NCDE) was selected for an award in the most recent round of New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) allocations (just announced by the CDFI Fund of the US Department of the Treasury) despite at least one Native-sponsored applicant and one non-Native applicant totally dedicated to Indian Country deployment. These two CDEs’ allocation requests were peer reviewed and ranked ‘highly qualified’ to be eligible for an allocation.
The NMTC program, which annually allocates about $3 Billion in Federal Tax credits that are sold to private investors for investing in low income communities’ economic development projects, has allocated over a $100 Billion in tax credit authority since the program’s inception in 2003. Indian Country NCDEs have only just started to receive a small portion of the annual allocations, in recent years. In total, Native CDEs have received about $250 Million in tax credit authority, or about 0.25% of total investment authority. While small in proportion to total NMTC allocation, this amount has made the NMTC program a significant source of Indian Country investment capital in only a few short years. Until this year, that is.
The failure to allocate ANY NMTC to Native CDEs in the most recent competition puts hundreds of millions of dollars of Indian Country pipeline projects at risk and highlights the need for the Federal Government to more directly address Indian Country’s rapidly expanding capacity to utilize NMTC. There is precedence at the CDFI Fund to solve this problem: Carve Out a portion of each NMTC allocation for competitive allocation just among Native CDEs similar to the already existing carve out that exists in the Native American CDFI Assistance (NACA) program, which reserves other elements of the CDFI Fund’s programs just for Indian Country. Without such a carve out, Indian Country will continue, in any given year, to be at risk of being crowded out of the intense competition for NMTC by other low income communities, whose larger populations support the formation of more CDEs that can enter, and potentially, win in the annual NMTC competition.
I happened across this libertarian-oriented article advocating (among other things) that tribes allow less-regulated medicine within their borders. I don’t tend to agree–personally I think the medical profession should be regulated, but I wanted to pass this along anyway.
SSRN-id1726074[1]
Here.
From the court’s syllabus:
Affirming the district court’s judgment in an action concerning a dispute over a revenue-sharing contract between a Nevada corporation and a tribally chartered corporation of the Hualapai Indian Tribe for the building and operation of the Grand Canyon Skywalk, the panel held that the Nevada corporation must exhaust tribal court remedies before proceeding in federal court on its claims challenging the Tribe’s authority to condemn its intangible property rights in the contract.
The panel concluded that the bad faith and futility exceptions to the exhaustion requirement did not apply. It held that where a tribal court has asserted jurisdiction and is entertaining a suit, the tribal court must have acted in bad faith for exhaustion to be excused; bad faith by a litigant instituting the tribal court action will not suffice. The panel held that the submitted evidence did not establish that the tribal court operated in bad faith or was controlled by the tribal council in its decision making. The panel also affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the evidence did not meet the narrow futility exception, which applies where exhaustion would be futile because of the lack of adequate opportunity to challenge the tribal court’s jurisdiction.
The panel held inapplicable the exhaustion exception for cases in which the tribal court plainly lacks jurisdiction. The panel stated that the main rule of Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), that generally Indian tribes lack civil authority over the conduct of nonmembers on non-Indian land within a reservation, was unlikely to apply to the facts of this case. The panel held that the district court correctly relied upon Water Wheel Camp Recreation Area, Inc. v. LaRance, 642 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2011), which recognizes that a tribe’s inherent authority over tribal land may provide for regulatory authority over non-Indians on that land without the need to consider Montana. Moreover, even if the tribal court were to apply Montana’s main rule, the Nevada corporation’s consensual relationship with the tribal corporation, or the financial implications of their agreement, likely would place the case squarely within one of Montana’s exceptions and allow for tribal jurisdiction.
Briefs are here.
The arbitration decision can be found here. The Respondent has filed a complaint in federal court to stay the arbitration decision, which we will try to obtain. A snippet of the arbitration decision:
The Complainant is an Indian Tribe (termed a “Native Sovereign Nation” in more recent governmental documents) that is recognized by the Federal Government of the United States of America. The Complainant occupies a tribal reservation in and around the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River in the State of Arizona. It is undisputed that the Complainant is a legal entity that is competent, among other things, to engage in commerce and to own and use trademarks in commerce.
Since the 1950s, tourism has been the Complainant’s principal economic activity, commercialized through tribally owned enterprises. Despite the fact that there are no roads leading to the portion of the tribal reservation where world-famous waterfalls are located, some 20,000 tourists arrive annually on foot or on horseback, or by helicopter. The Complainant’s “Havasupai Tourism Enterprise” provides tourism services such as food, lodging, and guided horseback excursions and operates the “Havasupai Lodge”, the “Havasupai Tribal Café”, the “Havasupai Trading Post”, and campgrounds. The Complainant’s official website is found at “www.havasupai-nsn.gov”. . . .
The Respondent has since used the Domain Name for commercial gain, for paid advertising relating to Grand Canyon tours and lodging and other services, some of which compete with those offered by the Complainant. The Respondent has fostered a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks, by using the same Domain Name incorporating those marks that was formerly used by the Complainant itself, misleadingly displaying the Complainant’s name on the associated website and the Complainant’s contact information on the “Contact” page of that website, and providing no identification of the Respondent or disclaimer of affiliation with the Complainant. The Panel concludes that these facts fit the paradigm of bad faith described in the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv), as an attempt to mislead Internet users for commercial gain.
Here are the materials:
Remaining Defendants’ Cross-Motion
An excerpt:
For the reasons below, the Court grants the City summary judgment as to defendants’ liability under the CCTA and the CMSA. With respect to relief, the Court (1) grants the requested permanent injunction against defendants’ “purchase, receipt, possession, sale, distribution, offer and advertisement of unstamped cigarettes-even to tribe members for personal use”; (2) awards damages as against the Peace Pipe and TDM defendants; (3) awards civil penalties as against the Red Dot defendants, the amount of which will be determined at a later hearing; and (4) awards the City attorney’s fees, the amount of which will be determined in the first instance by Magistrate Judge Vera Scanlon by report and recommendation.
And the bad news (liability):
For the reasons stated, the Court concludes the following: As to defendant Phillips, the City is directed to clarify whether it is still seeking monetary relief against him, and if so, to submit further damages briefing that identifies the amounts the City is seeking against Phillips only. As to the Peace Pipe, TDM, and Red Dot defendants, the Court finds that the City is entitled to summary judgment on (1) defendants’ liability under the CCTA and the CMSA, and (2) its requested permanent injunction against defendants’ “purchase, receipt, possession, sale, distribution, offer and advertisement of unstamped cigarettes-even to tribe members for personal use.” In addition, the Court awards to the City (1) damages in the amount of $10,041,075 as against the Peace Pipe defendants and $450,000 as against the TDM defendants; (2) civil penalties as against the Red Dot defendants, the amount of which will be determined at a later hearing; and (3) attorney’s fees, the amount of which will be determined in the first instance by Magistrate Judge Scanlon by report and recommendation.
Here are the materials in King Mt. Tobacco Co. v. McKenna (E.D. Wash.):
Washington AG Motion for Summary J
King Mountain Tobacco Motion for Summary J
An excerpt:
Based on the finding above that the finished cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco [24] are not directly derived from trust land, King Mountain can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that Washington’s escrow statutes are in conflict with the Treaty or federal law which would entitle Plaintiffs to relief. Escrow is required for all non-exempt sales subject to the State’s cigarette taxes, regardless whether those sales occur on or off the reservation. Escrow isnotrequired for tax exempt King Mountain sales of cigarettes purchased directly by enrolled members of federally recognized Indian tribes from an Indian tribal jurisdiction of the member’s tribe for the member’s own use. If there were any past sales that were exempt from state excise tax, but for which King Mountain has deposited money into escrow anyway, King Mountain has failed to offer evidence in support of a refund claim and the court expresses no opinion concerning the same. Accordingly, King Mountain, a NPM, is required to comply with the escrow statute for all past and future sales deemed “units sold.”
The ABA Business Law Section’s journal, Business Law Today, has published “The Future of Tribal Lending Under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”
An excerpt:
Some Indian tribes – particularly impecunious tribes located remotely from population centers, without sufficient traffic to engage profitably in casino gambling – have found much-needed revenue from consumer lending over the Internet.
In a typical model, the tribe forms a tribal lending entity (TLE) that is financed by a third party. The TLE then makes loans over the Internet to consumers nationwide, usually on terms that are unlawful under the internal laws of the states where the borrowers reside. Because the TLE is deemed an “arm” of the tribe, the TLE benefits from the tribe’s sovereign immunity. As a result, the TLE may be sued only under very limited circumstances; and, perhaps even more importantly, the TLE is exempt from most state-court discovery intended to unearth the economic relationship between the TLE and its non-tribal financier.
Because this model has, at least to date, provided a relatively bulletproof means to circumvent disparate state consumer-protection laws, the model has attracted Internet-based payday and, to a lesser extent, installment lenders. Although data are spotty, it is likely the fastest-growing model for unsecured online lending. Tribal sovereign immunity renders this model the preferred legal structure for online lenders desirous of employing uniform product pricing and terms nationwide, including for loans to borrowers who reside in states that prohibit such lending entirely.
The tribal model is increasingly being adopted by online lenders who had formerly employed other models. Yet the legal risks of the model to those who would “partner” with TLEs are rarely emphasized.
Here. An excerpt:
Chief Almir Surui, 38, has built alliances with American technology companies, environmental groups and lawmakers in the capital, Brasilia, and in cities far beyond Brazil. And the Surui reserve, called Seventh of September for the date in 1969 when the outside world made its first sustained contact with the tribe, has become a hotbed of technology designed to protect the jungle.
The Indians use smartphones to monitor illegal logging and Google Earth Outreach to show the world what their reserve is like.
“Our model calls for saving the forest and fighting for sustainable development,” says Chief Almir, as he stands in the middle of the forest surrounded by chirping birds and many species of trees. “It’s a challenge because it’s very important to do all this. But other countries do not always pursue responsible policies.”
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.