Here are the materials in Keim v. Harrah’s Operating Co. (S.D. Cal.):
gaming
Profile of Fred Dakota: “The Father of Indian Casino Gaming”
Cert Petition Filed over Nooksack Casino
Here is the petition in North Country Community Alliance v. Salazar: North County Community Alliance Cert Petition
Lower court materials are here.
The questions presented:
Must the National Indian Gaming Commission establish its jurisdiction over a tribe’s potential gaming sites, by determining that such sites qualify as “Indian lands”, before approving the tribe’s gaming ordinance?
Does the National Indian Gaming Commission act ultra vires when it approves a tribal gaming ordinance which allows construction and operation of a gaming facility on land which is never determined by the Commission to be “Indian lands”?
There doesn’t appear to be any reason to grant cert in this case. By the petitioner’s own admission, there is no circuit split. This is a case of first impression before the Court, and that usually means a death knell for the petition.
Gaming on Newly Acquired Lands Rule Apparently Not Submitted to GAO
A recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report detailed the number of agency rules which were not passed on to the Government Accounting Office (GAO). Hat tip, Constitutional Law Prof Blog. The report concludes that over 1,000 rules over the past 10 years had not been submitted to the GAO. The reason for this requirement, according to the CRS report is as follows:
Agency regulations generally start with an act of Congress, and are the means by which statutes are implemented and specific requirements are established. Therefore, Congress has a vested interest in overseeing the regulations that agencies issue pursuant to those statutes. Because congressional authority over agency rulemaking was believed to have waned in recent decades (while presidential authority over rulemaking had increased), the CRA was enacted in an attempt to reclaim a measure of congressional control.107 Although Congress can learn about the issuance of agency rules in many ways, the requirement in Section 801(a)(1)(A) of the CRA that agencies submit all of their final rules to GAO and Congress before they can take effect helps to ensure that Congress will have an opportunity to review, and possibly disapprove of, agency rules.
Curious, we decided to try to find out if the recent advisory letter turned rule regarding gaming on newly acquired trust lands (with the 25 mile radius or near a “significant number of tribal members” requirement) was one that hasn’t been submitted to the GAO pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. It appears it is. 25 CFR 292, “Gaming on Trust Lands Acquired After October 17, 1988” does not come up in a search of the GAO’s database Federal Rules Database.
Federal Court Dismisses Effort by Wells Fargo to Take Over LDF’s Lake of the Torches EDC
Pretty incredible case. Wells Fargo, alleging financial improprieties by the EDC relating to an indentured trust, sought an order from the court appointing a receiver for the EDC. The EDC defended on grounds of sovereign immunity and that the trust had not been approved by the NIGC, apparently prevailing on the latter theory.
Here are the materials (the court has promised a written opinion “in due course”):
Wells Fargo Motion to Appoint Receiver
LDF Opposition to Motion to Appoint Receiver
Wells Fargo Reply re Motion to Appoint Receiver
Wells Fargo Supplemental Brief re Motion to Appoint Receiver
Texas Kickapoo Embezzlement Convictions Reversed by Fifth Circuit
Here is the opinion in United States v. Garza, and a news article (via Pechanga) on the case.
Another Mario Gonzales sighting!
NYTs Editorial on the Shinnecock Recognition
Pathetic. Rank hypocrisy, at the very least.
From the NYTs:
More than 200 years late — 31 if you count from the tribe’s petition — the federal government has acknowledged that the Shinnecocks of Southampton, Long Island, are an Indian tribe. Settling that question raises new ones. The Shinnecocks will almost certainly try to build a casino — they have been lobbying as hard for one as they have for recognition — but how big, and where?
The “where” is an especially interesting question. Casinos are usually built on reservation land. The Shinnecocks live on the East End of Long Island, a national depository of wealth, privilege and privacy. When the tribe jumped the gun a few years back and bulldozed part of its property for a bingo hall, the not-in-my-backyard opposition erupting from the dunes and privet hedges was ferocious. And that was just a skirmish.
That is probably why the Shinnecocks are exploring other sites in Suffolk County, at two New York racetracks and in the Catskills. But building an off-reservation casino is itself fraught with uncertainty and regulatory hurdles. The tribe could end up spending many years and lots of money chasing something that is a guaranteed winner only for lobbyists and consultants.
Casinos are also a magnet for tainted money and a handmaiden to addiction, crime and other social ills. That is why we would urge the tribe to spend its energy on finding other ways to leverage its valuable real estate.
A casino is, after all, only a means to an end — to economic vitality, greater respect, a better future for the tribe’s 1,000 members. The Shinnecocks are now in a much better position to pursue that dream. Lack of federal status did more than hamper the tribe’s quest for gambling riches. It also denied it access to federal programs for housing, health care and education.
The Shinnecocks have a long, proud history of self- governance, and advantages that poorer, more remote tribes can only dream of: geography, bargaining power and the support of state officials including Gov. David Paterson, who endorsed their quest for recognition. The good news on recognition would be even better if the tribe could foresee a future apart from slots and dice.
Shooting at Barona Band Gaming Commission
From the San Diego Union-Tribune via Pechanga:
LAKESIDE — A Barona Gaming Commission employee who was fired last month walked into a commission office armed with a shotgun Tuesday morning and shot and killed a manager, then turned the gun on himself, authorities said.
San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore identified the shooter in the murder-suicide as Donnell Roberts, 38, of El Cajon. He worked as an investigator for the commission before he was terminated in November.
Roberts’ ex-wife, Maria Small of Racine, Wis., said Roberts was a former Marine who was discharged from the service in 1994 after serving in the Gulf War. She described him as a man who was sometimes violent and “always angry.”
The name of the victim was not immediately released.
The bodies of both men were found about 2:30 p.m. inside the manager’s office, Gore said. Continue reading
Slot Machine Distributor Loses Contract Claims against Slot Machine Manufacturer
Slow news day….
An excerpt:
The case originally involved two written contracts between Plaintiff and Vision, entitled “Vision Gaming & Technology, Inc. Distribution Agreement for Oklahoma” and “Vision Gaming & Technology Inc. Participation Agreement.” The Distribution Agreement appointed Plaintiff as Vision’s exclusive distributor for the sale of its gaming products in Oklahoma. The Participation Agreement authorized Plaintiff to place gaming devices owned by Vision in gaming facilities operated by Native American tribes in Oklahoma and to obtain contracts with the tribes that would provide for Plaintiff and Vision to share a percentage of the revenue generated by the operation of those devices. The Distribution Agreement contained an arbitration clause, which has now been enforced by a federal district court in Georgia. Plaintiff, Pierson and Vision were ordered “to submit to arbitration all issues arising under the Distribution Agreement.” See Vision Gaming & Tech., Inc. v. Tribal Consortium, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-2267-RWS, Order at 13 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 8, 2007). Thus, all claims relating to the Distribution Agreement are subject to arbitration and cannot be litigated in this case. The federal court in Georgia ruled, however, that “issues arising under the Participation Agreement are not subject to arbitration.” Id.
Bottom line — plaintiff loses.
Fort Independence Survives Summary Judgment in IGRA Good Faith Suit
Here are the materials in Fort Independence Indian Community v. California (E.D. Cal.):
California Motion for Summary J
Fort Independence Motion for Summary J
Fort Independence Response Brief
An excerpt, listing the issues decided and the remaining issue:
The court grants summary adjudication as to the following issues:* The State’s proposal comport with 25 U.S.C. section 2710(d)(3)(C)* Forfeiture of the right to receive RSTF payments is not a tax, fee, charge, or assessment.* The offer of permission to conduct Class III gaming is not a “concession.”* The offer of exclusivity is a concession.A material question exists as to whether the concession of exclusivity is meaningful. The matter will proceed for resolution of this issue.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.