gaming – Page 125 – Turtle Talk

Allen v. Mayhew — Complaint against Tribal Officials and Individuals

February 24, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

February 22, 2009February 22, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

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:

Michigan, and the rest of the US, is in a serious, serious economic downturn.
The State of Michigan, losing tax revenue each and every day, and suffering through year after year of declining governmental revenues.
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.
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.
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 →

Michigan House Approves Gun Lake Compact

February 21, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From AP:

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The state will get a slice of revenue from a planned Native American casino southwest of Grand Rapids, thanks to a deal approved by both chambers of the Legislature.

The House approved a resolution on the compact with the Gun Lake tribe by a voice vote Thursday. A similar resolution was approved by the Senate earlier this month.

The 2007 compact was negotiated between the tribe and Gov. Jennifer Granholm. The federal government put 147 acres of land into trust for the casino in Allegan County’s Wayland Township this year.

Continue reading →

McCracken v. Easley — N.C. Court Says IGRA Doesn’t Allow State to Ban Video Poker

February 19, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in McCracken v. Easley — mccracken-v-easley (via Pechanga and TV):

Strange case. Without any discussion except one sentence, the court struck down a state law ban on video poker, a ban that excluded tribal gaming in accordance with a Class III compact. The sentence is: “IGRA does not permit a state to ban the possession and operation of video gaming machines elsewhere in the state while allowing their possession and operation on tribal lands.”

I’d like to see the briefs, but all I can say is … baffling. Of course IGRA allows exactly this kind of law. IGRA allows tribes to negotiate and execute Class III compacts with states that have not banned gaming outright. And even if the state bans all gaming post-Class III compact, the compact will continue until it expires.

Commentary on Possible Burt Lake Band Casino Development

February 17, 2009February 18, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Yesterday’s interesting statement by a lawyer for the Burt Lake Band suggesting that all the Band would need to commence gaming is simple legislation from the State Legislature deserves a spot of commentary. I guess their lawyer is reading this provision of the Michigan Constitution, added by state referendum in 2004, for support:

The legislature may authorize lotteries and permit the sale of lottery tickets in the manner provided by law. No law enacted after January 1, 2004, that authorizes any form of gambling shall be effective, nor after January 1, 2004, shall any new state lottery games utilizing table games or player operated mechanical or electronic devices be established, without the approval of a majority of electors voting in a statewide general election and a majority of electors voting in the township or city where gambling will take place. This section shall not apply to gambling in up to three casinos in the City of Detroit or to Indian tribal gaming. [Mich. Const. sec. 41, emphasis added]

Since Burt Lake Band is not a federally recognized tribe, they would not be subject the requirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, nor would the Department of Interior take land into trust for the Band under 25 U.S.C. 465. So the lawyer’s statement (“A bill will have to be introduced, passed by a simple majority in the House and Senate, has to be signed by Gov. Granholm, and we can rock and roll from there”) that the Band isn’t subject to all these difficult regulatory hurdles is correct, perhaps, but only if the Band would be considered eligible for “Indian tribal gaming” under Section 41.

Leaving aside for the moment the very real political problem the Band would face getting the Michigan Legislature to pass a special statute for them, I think there might be a significant legal problem facing the Band. Literally read, Section 41 applies to all Indian tribes. Burt Lake Band is an Indian tribe, as are the 12 federally recognized tribes. And so are the other non-federally recognized tribes as the Mackinaw Band, the Black River and Swan Creek Band, and Grand River Band. However, I strongly suspect the intent of the provision was to protect the federally recognized tribes of Michigan.

In short, I doubt the “Indian tribal gaming” language was intended to include tribes like the Burt Lake Band. It is my understanding (I was living in Grand Forks, N.D. when the voters adopted this referendum) that the key sponsors of the language were the federally recognized tribes. If there is any legislative history on this Section, I’d like to see it. Moreover, the State of Michigan has cut deals with all 12 federally recognized tribes to conduct gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, so it makes additional sense to limit the “Indian tribal gaming” language.

I think there are also some sound public policy reasons for limiting the application of that language. The key one for me is that, if Burt Lake Band gets special legislation, Michigan will be innundated by Johnny-come-lately “Indian tribes” from all over looking for the same backdoor to a casino.

I’m a very strong supporter of Burt Lake’s petition for federal recognition, and any efforts to convince Congress to recognize the Band. But I surely hope their lawyer is doing more than just blowing smoke. There isn’t going to be much “rock and roll” from here.

Burt Lake Band May Pursue Casino under State Law Without Federal Recognition

February 17, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

From Indianz:

The Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians doesn’t need federal recognition to open a casino in Michigan, a lawyer for the tribe said.

The tribe can pursue state approval for a casino in Sturgis, said John Dresser, of Dresser, Dresser, Haas and Caywood. “A bill will have to be introduced, passed by a simple majority in the House and Senate, has to be signed by Gov. Granholm, and we can rock and roll from there,” Dresser told Business Review Western Michigan. The process would take much longer if the tribe was recognized, according to Dresser. He said new regulations would limit where the tribe could pursue a casino.

Get the Story:
Truck stop with casino seen as a quick economic fix for Sturgis (Business Review Western Michigan 2/17)

ICT on Gun Lake Band Fee to Trust Victory

February 17, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From ICT:

BRADLEY, Mich. – The Interior Department has formally taken 147 acres of land into trust for the Gun Lake Tribe, ending a decade of opposition from an anti-Indian casino group.

Interior’s action took place Jan. 30; nine days after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition from Michigan Gaming Opposition (MichGO) challenging the interior’s authority to take land into trust.

A few days earlier, U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon tossed out a motion filed by former Wayland Township Trustee David Patchak, asking for a stay to stop the federal government from putting the tribe’s land into trust. Both actions were based on a highly controversial land into trust case – Carcieri vs. Narragansett – filed by the state of Rhode Island against the Narragansett Indian Tribe. Carcieri questions the interior secretary’s authority to take land into trust and whether land can be taken into trust for tribes that were not recognized in 1934, the year of the Indian Reorganization Act.

The two legal actions end any ambiguity about Gun Lake’s legal ability to move forward with its planned $200 million casino.

The tribe issued a press release with the exuberant headline “In land we trust.”
Continue reading →

Cert Petition in California v. Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians

February 12, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Ah, Rule 19! Here is California’s cert petition — california-petition-for-cert

Just so everyone knows, I called this YEARS ago! See my “The Comparative Rights of Indispensable Sovereigns.” 🙂

And here are the lower court materials (Rincon Band; Cachil Dehe; and San Pascqual). And here is our post on Pimentel.

Questions Presented (from the cert petition):

In 1999, the State of California and sixty-one federally recognized tribes entered into virtually identical tribal-state class III gaming compacts (Compacts) under the authority of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721 (IGRA). The Compacts allow those tribes to operate slot machines if they have been issued licenses for those devices from a prioritized and limited license pool established by the Compacts, or if they have obtained a compact amendment allowing them to operate slot machines without reference to that license pool. The questions presented are:

1. In applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 (Rule 19), may a federal court, consistent with the rule of decision in Republic of the Philippines v. Pimentel, 128 S. Ct. 2180 (2008), utilize the authority it has under Rule 19(b) to safeguard (through the shaping of relief) the legally protected interest of an absent sovereign as a basis for finding that the absent sovereign is not a required party within the meaning of Rule 19(a)?

2. May the asserted ability of a court of appeals to resolve inconsistent district court decisions on the same claim for relief be relied upon to conclude that an absent person need not be joined under Rule 19(a)?

Michigan Senate Bills 67-68: Capturing Child Support from Gaming Winnings

February 12, 2009February 12, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Under these bills, every time a $1000 winner at a Michigan casino tries to collect, the casino must determine whether or not the winner owes money in the child support system.

2009-SIB-0067

2009-SIB-0068