Comments on the Wolfchild Case

There’s no reason to take a position on the Federal Circuit’s decision reversing the trial court in the Wolfchild case, but there are several big-picture issues that may have affected the Circuit’s decision or otherwise demonstrate that something is horribly wrong in federal Indian law.

First, the lawyer’s history propounded by the trial court, the Federal Circuit, and necessarily the parties is troubling. Let us not forget, as it would be very easy to do from the Federal Circuit’s opinion, that this whole thing started with the violent and illegal acts of the United States government. It was the United States’ actions that precipitated the so-called “rebellion” of the Dakota people near Fort Snelling. And it was the local non-Indian populace, the Army, and President Lincoln that characterized the “rebellion” as a series of “massacres.” The people called the “Loyal Mdewakanton” and the people, predominantly plaintiffs, that were not so “loyal” were all part of this community utterly ravaged by the United States. The end of this war in 1862 resulted in the largest mass execution of anyone in American history — about 40 men and boys, all Dakota. And the majority of Dakota people in the area were rounded up and sent on a death march that included at least three or four states, killing many, many people.

None of that is relevant to this case, apparently. But it really should be.

Continue reading

Student Paper on Gaming and Environmental Law

The Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review has published “Betting the Rancheria: Environmental Protections as Bargaining Chips Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act,” by Matthew Murphy. You can access the article here, but it begins on page 171 of the pdf, which takes some time to download. Here is the abstract:

In 2005, the State of California and the Big Lagoon Rancheria American Indian Tribe reached an agreement whereby the tribe agreed to forego development plans for a casino on environmentally sensitive lands in exchange for the right to build a casino in Barstow, California. In January 2008, the Department of the Interior denied the Rancheria’s land-into-trust application for land in Barstow based on the Department’s newly issued “commutable distance” memorandum. This denial represents a missed opportunity to allow California and the tribe to cooperate in fashioning a workable tribal-state compact. The Department should abandon the guidance memorandum and allow tribes to pursue off-reservation gaming in appropriate instances where the proposed development enjoys political support at the local level. In exchange, states should be afforded greater deference under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to achieve some level of regulatory control to address the off-reservation impacts of casino development.

No Federal Court Jurisdiction over Tribe under Federal Arbitration Act

The Southern District of California held in Harris v. Sycuan Band of Diegueno Mission Indians that, in a dispute over an arbitration award, the Federal Arbitration Act alone does not confer jurisdiction on federal courts.

Here is the opinion — dct-order-dismissing-harris-complaint

Supreme Court Denies Cert in Seminole Tribe v. Florida House of Representatives

Here is the Court’s order list for today. Seminole’s bad news is on page 3.

This was to be expected, though at some point the Court will grant cert on an Indian Gaming Regulatory Act case, if enough state supreme courts come through with strange opinions. It might be awhile….

Carcieri Fix Might Not Be So Easy

I couldn’t really do it in 800 words, but my ICT editorial necessarily left out several points I still want to make about Carcieri and its impact. Here is the first. Others will follow.

The Carcieri fix will not be an easy sell. Tribal interests have relatively recently “fixed” a Supreme Court decision by asking Congress for help — the so-called Duro fix. But consider how many other “fixes” never got off the ground: (1) Oliphant Fix (numerous incarnations); (2) Seminole Tribe Fix; and (3) Hicks Fix.

Why did the Duro Fix get through while the others did not? First, the only constituency that would have opposed the Duro Fix was nonmember Indians, the most famous (later on) being Russell Means, who traveled from city to city arguing against tribal criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians after he got arrested at Navajo. Second, state and local governments had some general interest in limiting tribal criminal jurisdiction (the same as they do with jurisdiction over non-Indians) but the interest is just that — general. And a bit disingenous in a lot of places in the country.

Continue reading

Judge Cohn Rejects Challenge to Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act

The Eastern District of Michigan rejected a constitutional challenge to Michigan Const. art. IV, section 41, otherwise known as Proposal E, and the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act. Here are the pleadings in Northville Downs v. Granholm.

northville-downs-complaint

state-motion-to-dismiss

mgm-motion-to-dismiss

northville-response-to-motion-to-dismiss [response begins around page 27, the rest is an amended complaint]

state-reply-brief

mgm-reply-brief

northville-downs-dct-opinion

BankFirst v. Ginsburg — Suit between Lender and Gaming Developer

The District of Minnesota denied a change in venue sought by a Florida gaming developer in a suit involving a gaming-related loan. The developer works for Chippewa Cree Community Development Corporation, of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation.

Here is the order and the underlying complaint:

bankfirst-dct-order-re-venue

bankfirst-complaint

Emmet County Revenue Sharing Board Loses Court Case

From Ludington Daily News:

PETOSKEY — The Emmet County Local Revenue Sharing Board’s method of dividing tribal casino profits among local governments was wrong, a judge ruled recently.

Charlevoix County Circuit Court Judge Richard Pajtas made the ruling in a suit three Petoskey area school boards brought against the revenue sharing board, according to Dennis O. Cawthorne, a former state representative from Manistee who represented the school boards through the law firm Kelley Cawthorne, which he heads with former Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelley.

Cawthorne recently notified Manistee Area Public Schools Superintendent Bob Olsen about the Emmet County decision and said it proves the Manistee Local Revenue Sharing Board is correct in the way it handles allocations from slot machine profits at the Little River Casino Resort.

Continue reading

Allen v. Mayhew — Complaint against Tribal Officials and Individuals

Once again, the Eastern District of California has refused to dismiss a Section 1981 complaint against tribal gaming employees of the Gold Country Casino, owned by the Berry Creek Rancheria of Tyme Maidu Indians. Here is the opinion — feb-20-2009-dct-order

Here is our earlier post, with the earlier order.

Commentary: Now Is the Time for Michigan Tribes to Renew Their Gaming Compacts

The success — shocking and aweing (surely to the MichGO plaintiffs — :)) — of the Gun Lake Band in getting their Class III gaming compact through the Michigan Senate (controlled by Republicans) and House (controlled by Dems, and a few years back had previously approved the compact) should be a serious sign to the rest of the Michigan tribes — NOW is the time to renew or renegotiate gaming compacts.

Here are the facts:

  1. Michigan, and the rest of the US, is in a serious, serious economic downturn.
  2. The State of Michigan, losing tax revenue each and every day, and suffering through year after year of declining governmental revenues.
  3. Michigan tribes, also, are suffering through declining revenue. It turns out that gaming may be recession-proof, but it surely isn’t depression-proof. Now is the time to prove to the State’s negotiators that tribes will be hurt — perhaps even killed — by increased revenue sharing.
  4. Gov. Granholm isn’t going to be the State’s governor forever. The next governor may be someone far less likely to (a) negotiate an Indian gaming compact with reasonable terms, or (b) negotiate a gaming compact at all.
  5. Tribes like Burt Lake will be knocking at the State’s door offering something more than 10 percent, all the way up to the Detroit casino’s 36 percent (did I get that percentage right?).

Continue reading