News Coverage of Little River Band Casino Agreement for Muskegon

From the Ludington Daily News via Pechanga:

FRUITPORT TWP. — The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians and Gov. Jennifer Granholm have reached an agreement helping clear the way for development of a gaming facility just outside of Muskegon, the tribe announced Friday.

Granholm and the tribal government have reached agreement on two compact amendments that bring the tribe one step closer to building the casino on the site of the former Great Lakes Downs Racetrack, property the tribe now owns. The amendments will allow the tribe to go forward with the process of placing a small portion of the property into trust with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

A third compact amendment is proceeding to both houses of the Michigan Legislature regarding changing the definition of “Eligible Indian Lands” under section 2 (B) (1). Both houses will need to approve this additional amendment in order for the project to move forward. The first two amendments did not require legislative approval.

Granholm encouraged the legislature to approve the remaining compact amendment, the press release stated.

“In short, neither the state nor the local units of government in Muskegon County will realize the benefit of the additional revenue sharing and the attendant economic development represented by this project unless the Legislature adopts the necessary resolutions concurring in the Third Amendment,” she stated, adding, the project is, “…in the best interests of the state and the public …”

Tribal Ogema Larry Romanelli, a Muskegon area resident, said, “Muskegon has been hard hit in recent years and I am so pleased that our tribe has the opportunity to provide some hope and help to all of our people, tribal and non-tribal, at this time.”

Continue reading

New Scholarship on Gaming and Tribal Membership

Suzianne Painter-Thorne has published “If You Build It, They Will Come: Preserving Tribal Sovereignty in the Face of Indian Casinos and the New Face of Tribal Membership” in the Lewis & Clark Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

This Article considers recent disputes over membership decisions made by American Indian tribal governments. Since Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, Indian casinos have flourished on some tribal reservations. Some argue that the new wealth brought by casinos has increased fights over membership as tribes seek to expel current members or refuse to admit new members. It is difficult to discern whether there are more disputes over tribal enrollment as a consequence of gaming or whether such disputes are now more public because gaming has brought tribes to the forefront of U.S. culture. What is clear is that enrollment disputes are receiving increased attention, resulting in calls for some change to address what many perceive as a fundamental unfairness in tribal decision making.

Aggrieved members’ attempts to resort to federal or state court are blocked due to a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, standing, and because of the tribes’ sovereign immunity. Activists and courts have sought to change this, seeking to curtail the tribes’ sovereign immunity, expand federal court jurisdiction to permit oversight, or otherwise impose U.S. law on tribal membership decisions. Scholars are divided, with some arguing for the abrogation of immunity or sovereignty, while others argue that the tribes’ decisions are sacrosanct. Still others argue over how the tribes should define membership–contending that it should be based on cultural identity, political participation, blood quantity, or even DNA.

This Article argues that the focus should instead be on solutions that come from within the tribes. For too long the tribes have suffered from the imposition of legal and cultural norms that do not reflect their identity or culture. Because a tribe’s right to define its membership lies at the heart of its sovereignty, the solution is more, not less, sovereignty for the tribes. To remedy the impasse, I propose that tribes create separate independent judicial bodies, or an intertribal appellate court that would provide independent review of tribal membership decisions.

D.C. Circuit Briefing in Butte County v. Hogen (Skibine)

We reported on the lower court case, a challenge to off-reservation fee to trust for gaming purposes, here.

Briefs:

Butte County Initial Brief

Mechoopda Brief

Butte County Reply Brief

Upstate Citizens Claims re: Oneida Fee to Trust Fail (Mostly)

Here are the materials in Upstate Citizens for Equality v. Salazar (N.D. N.Y.), a companion to Central New York Fair Business Assn. v. Salazar (N.D. N.Y.):

DCT Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment

US Motion for Partial Dismissal

Plaintiff Response to Motion for Partial Dismissal

US Reply re Partial Dismissal

US Motion to Dismiss Supplemental Claim

Plaintiff Response to Motion to Dismiss Supp Claim

US Reply re Supp Claim

NPR on Mashantucket Pequot Labor Deal

From NPR:

American Indian casinos are big business in the United States, with an estimated 280,000 people employed across more than 400 sites.

That huge workforce is largely unorganized. Only a few such casinos recognize union contracts. Among them is North America’s largest gaming center, Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut.

Its dealers recently struck a deal after a lengthy dispute with the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe. What makes this agreement different is that it was brokered under tribal law.

Unionizing Casinos

Continue reading

Michigan Senate Efforts to Allow Indian Gaming Revenue Sharing to Benefit Schools

News article here (with an assist from A.K.):

School districts could use money received through agreements with tribal-run casinos to fund college scholarship programs through legislation approved by the Michigan Senate.

The bill approved by unanimous vote Thursday now goes to the House.

Michigan has more than 20 casinos run by American Indian tribes. The tribes have agreements with the state that typically provides 2 percent of certain gaming revenue to local governments, including schools.

The bill passed Thursday would allow school districts covered by those agreements to use their proceeds for scholarships for their graduates.

The legislation sponsored by Republican Sen. Ron Jelinek of Three Oaks was sparked by a plan from New Buffalo schools to fund a scholarship program.

Stewart v. Coffey — Tribal Gaming Employment Claims Dismissed

Here is the unpublished opinion by the Tenth Circuit, rejecting wrongful discharge claims under federal statutes and under Bivens, and affirming tribal immunity.

Here is the tribal brief: Comanche Brief.

California Appellate Court Holds that State May Tax Per Caps of Indians Living on Other Reservations

The case is Mike v. Franchise Tax Board (Cal. App. 4th Dist.) (opinion here).

Here are the briefs:

Mike Opening Brief

FTB Brief

MIke Reply Brief

Materials in a related case involving the 29 Palms Band are here.

An excerpt from the opinion:

Continue reading

Wilton Miwok Settlement Threatened by Possible Statute of Limitations Problem

The case is Wilton Miwok Rancheria v. Salazar, and involves an agreement to take land into trust for the tribe (both the Me-Wuks and the Miwoks) for gaming purposes. After the settlement was entered and approved by the court, intervenors (Sacramento County and City of Elk Grove) argued that the suit came too late under 28 U.S.C. 2401(a).

A few years back in John R. Sand and Gravel, the Supreme Court said that the statute of limitations under section 2402 (allowing claims against the US in the court of federal claims) was jurisdictional and could not be waived. Two circuits have held that section 2401 is also jurisdictional. Perhaps the Quiet Title Act also is jurisdictional (section 2409).

In this case, the court followed Ninth Circuit precedent decided before John R. and held that section 2401 is not jurisdictional, but specially allowed for an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit for review, and stayed the judgment.

Here are the materials:

Wilton Miwok DCT Order on Motion to Vacate

Continue reading

Seneca Gaming Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Materials

Here are the materials in this pending case (news article here via Pechanga):

Seneca Gaming Corp Complaint

Merrill Lynch Motion to Dismiss

Seneca Opposition to Motion to Dismiss