Here is the petition (previously posted).
Here is the cert opposition from the Solicitor General.
And here is the reply: North County Community Alliance Reply to Cert Opposition
This petition is slated for the April 16, 2010 Conference.
Here is the petition (previously posted).
Here is the cert opposition from the Solicitor General.
And here is the reply: North County Community Alliance Reply to Cert Opposition
This petition is slated for the April 16, 2010 Conference.
From the Muskegon Chronicle via Pechanga:
It’s becoming more of a sure bet Muskegon County will see construction of a casino in its near future.
With the governor’s approval of amendments to the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians’ tribal compact and Fruitport Township’s and Muskegon County’s approval of the 36-page Municipal Services Agreement last week, there are only a few hurdles left.
The Chronicle Editorial Board urges our state lawmakers to shepherd the plan to build at the former Great Lakes Downs site through the Legislature. All three — representatives Mary Valentine, D-Norton Shores, and Doug Bennett, D-Muskegon Twp., and Sen. Gerald Van Woerkom, R-Norton Shores — have indicated they will support the move that could eventually create up to 1,100 new jobs in Muskegon County.
The Legislature must agree with Gov. Granholm’s approval of a change in the tribal compact and the Little River Band needs approvals from the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of the Interior. The tribe is expected to ask that 60 acres of its 233-acre site in Fruitport Township be placed in a “trust” for casino development.
The Editorial Board also urges Congressman Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, and U.S. senators Carl Levin, D-Detroit and Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing to help this proposal sail through the approval process in Washington, D.C.
Federal lawmakers also should push highway officials to fund construction of an interchange at I-96 and Sternberg. The development of the interchange will be key to the continued growth of tourism and retail businesses in that area. Muskegon County has waged a 25-year campaign for the improvement and it has waited long enough.
With the construction of the casino and proper highway access, Muskegon County could become a year-round tourism destination, a definite boost in efforts to diversify the area economy and create permanent jobs in business serving casino visitors.
However, the Editorial Board continues to draw the line against a casino in downtown Muskegon or multiple casinos in the county.
Here are the materials in Rincon Band v. Schwarzeneggar:
DCT Order Granting Additional Slot Machines
Rincon Motion for Partial Summary J
Alex Skibine has posted his paper, “Indian Gaming and Cooperative Federalism,” forthcoming in the Arizona State Law Journal, on SSRN (also available on BEPress).
Here is the abstract:
In this article I evaluate the role of the federal Indian trust relationship in integrating, without assimilating, Indian tribes in our federalist system. I explore these issues through the lens of Indian gaming and implementation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Monday, March 22, 2010– The Carcieri Fix: (listen)
Last year the Supreme Court ruled in Carcieri v. Salazar that language in the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act does not allow the Interior Secretary to take land into trust for the Narragansett Tribe of Rhode Island because the tribe was not federally recognized in 1934. Tribal leaders immediately turned to their allies in Congress to pass a “Carcieri Fix” – a bill that would reverse the court’s decision. But the fix has not been passed. Does Indian Country have the clout to pull it off? Guests are Matthew Fletcher (Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa/Chippewa) of the Michigan State University College of Law and Jason Giles (Muscogee Creek) Deputy Executive Director/National Indian Gaming Association.
This involves off-reservation gaming in Glendale, Arizona (Indianz article here).
Here:
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.”
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.
We reported on the lower court case, a challenge to off-reservation fee to trust for gaming purposes, here.
Briefs:
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 Motion to Dismiss Supplemental Claim
You must be logged in to post a comment.