Here is the opinion: opinion
The interesting portion of this opinion is the court’s awareness that there is a circuit split over the question of whether Chevron deference will trump canons of statutory construction that favor Indian tribes. The Sixth Circuit has not yet decided this question. Here, the court chose to apply the Chevron test, but concluded that the government’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. So the question remained open.
They’re here, courtesy of the Supreme Court Project:
In support of Respondents:
Amicus Brief of Narragansett Indian Tribe
The Florida Court of Appeals held that the Seminole tribe’s per capita payments are sufficient to relieve at least one father of child support obligations. Here is the opinion in Cypress v. Jumper.
H/T Falmouth
The Western District of Oklahoma granted Velie & Velie’s motion for a default judgment in its attorney fees dispute with Onnam Entertainment and True Native American Gaming (previous post with materials).
The American Constitution Society just released an issue brief called “Understanding How Employees’ Rights to Organize Under the National Labor Relations Act Have Been Limited: The Case of Brown University.” Anyone following Indian Law knows that not all employees have this problem!
Here it is: dannin-issue-brief
Just take the words “Brown University” and replace them with “San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino” and you have a wildly different result. This issue brief, which is well-written, notes how the NLRB ignores precedent to reach pro-employer results and harms employee rights. Unfortunately, there is no mention of the San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino decision (from the same year as the Brown University decision, 2004), which reversed 30 years of precedent, gave short shrift to tribal sovereignty, and utterly ignored the governmental purposes of tribal gaming.
I haven’t seen any issue briefs on Indian Law from the ACS, an organization I support. I suppose it’s not a major issue for the ACS, but I urge the ACS and its issue brief writers to consider Indian Law on occasion. Dean Getches wrote a decade ago that tribal interests fare worse than any class of litigant before the Supreme Court, worse than convicted criminals, and not much has changed to the benefit of tribal interests.
Here are a few things the ACS could write about:
There are many other issues. There’s a lot of good things going on in Indian Country, too.
From Indianz:
The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians is banking on a casino to create new opportunities for the Michigan tribe.
Nearly half of the adult members of the tribe are unemployed. But some are now finding work on the Pine Creek Reservation with the construction of the FireKeepers Casino. “I thank the Creator for the jobs,” Bill Osborn, who was out of work until construction started in May, told The Battle Creek Enquirer. “I think the opportunities in the future are going to be immense.” The $300 million, 236,000 square-foot casino is set to open in the summer of 2009. With $100 million in annual revenue, the tribe plans to improve governmental programs and services for its 850 members. The tribe has already built housing to lure more people back to the reservation. Only about 35 people live there right now. In related news, the tribe is offering a $250 reward for information about the theft of copper wiring from from the casino construction site.
Get the Story:
Tribe: Profits will provide programs for members (The Battle Creek Enquirer 8/17)
Casino will bring change (The Battle Creek Enquirer 8/17)
Neighbors differ on FireKeepers (The Battle Creek Enquirer 8/17)
Tribe reports copper theft at casino (The Battle Creek Enquirer 8/16)
The post is here, and here is the abstract:
In a recent Senate hearing, Senator John McCain and Professor Washburn clashed about the federal role in tribal economic decisions involving Indian gaming. Professor Washburn, who was struck by decades of incompetent federal stewardship of tribal trust funds demonstrated so painfully in the Cobell litigation, questioned the wisdom of the existing gaming regulatory structure in which federal officials at the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) exercise oversight of tribal economic decisions involving tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Senator McCain sharply disagreed. Following his investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, McCain was even more certain that tribes needed federal protection from outsiders like Abramoff. McCain argued that the need for such protection justified close federal oversight of tribal economic decisions. The dilemma inherent in this exchange between Senator McCain and Professor Washburn will haunt the relationship between the United States and Indian tribes in the post-Cobell (and post-Abramoff) era. The purpose of this panel discussion at Harvard Law School was to consider these issues in the context of the work of the NIGC. The NIGC reviews Indian gaming management contracts under strict statutory standards. It reviews other contracts for violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s “sole proprietary interest” standard. In an era of tribal self-determination and self-governance, what is the justification for NIGC review of tribal economic decisions? Does the NIGC exercise a “trust responsibility” toward Indian tribes? What are the practical ramifications of having federal public servants reviewing tribal economic decisions worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars? Are the costs of such review justified by the benefits? Is federal oversight useful for tribal transactions in which tribes have obtained the advice of Wall Street investment banks and legal counsel at sophisticated law firms? Are federal public servants competent to review the increasingly complex financial arrangements created in such transactions? Is the NIGC accountable for its decisions? What remedy ought to be available to tribes if the NIGC makes an error? If such review is necessary to protect tribes, on what basis should federal public servants disapprove such agreements?
From the AP:
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court has issued a stay preventing a proposed tribal casino in Allegan County from moving forward.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order Friday pending a potential review from the U.S. Supreme Court. Opponents of the casino have asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.
The Gun Lake tribe wants to build a $200 million casino in Allegan County’s Wayland Township. A group called Michigan Gambling Opposition has spent years trying to stop the casino from being built.
The appeals court sided with the tribe earlier this year, upholding a decision by the federal government to set aside 147 acres of land where the casino would be built near Grand Rapids.
From the Detroit News:
DETROIT — Greektown Casino LLC, which is in bankruptcy reorganization, shouldn’t get an exclusive right until June 1 to file a turnaround plan, a group of creditors and a U.S. government representative told a judge.
Greektown’s request to block competing plans for more than eight months beyond the current Sept. 26 deadline should be denied because the company can realistically gauge its success long before then, U.S. Trustee Daniel McDermott said in an objection filed Monday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Detroit.
“The court should not permit the debtors to remain in Chapter 11 in a shroud of secrecy” while ” keeping other potential plan proponents off the playing field for such an extensive length of time,” McDermott said in the filing.
Closely held Greektown won court approval last June to borrow $150 million to continue operations and construction of a new hotel and gaming floor. McDermott questioned the viability of the company’s projected future operations during an economic decline in the U.S.
“The question that must be answered is whether the projections are reasonable for the foreseeable future in the given economic and political milieu in Detroit,” McDermott said in the filing.
Objections also were filed by the Michigan Gaming Control Board and the official committee of unsecured creditors.
Greektown sought court protection from creditors on May 29, citing cost overruns in a $332 million expansion. It opened in 2000, four years after Michigan citizens voted to legalize three gambling facilities in Detroit. It employs about 1,976 people, and attracts 15,800 visitors a day, the company said.
This unpublished opinion from the Ninth Circuit, a companion case to the Cachil Dehe Band decision from last week, is here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.