DOI Consultation Notice on DOI Reorganization

Download(PDF): Tribal Listening Sessions on E.O. 13871: Reorganization of the Executive Branch

Acting Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Michael S. Black, invites Tribal leaders to attend one of the listed listening sessions to provide input on improving “efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability” at the Department of the Interior.

DATES

Tribe Notifies State of Wisconsin of Intent to Withhold Revenue Sharing Payment

Download(PDF): Letter of Notification

From the Tribe:

The Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe announced today that it has notified the State of Wisconsin of its intent to withhold its revenue sharing payment of $923,000 due to the State’s violation of its gaming compact with the tribe.

The State is in violation of two sections of its compact with the Stockbridge-Munsee by:

  • Allowing the Ho-Chunk Nation to unlawfully operate its Wittenberg Casino on lands not eligible for Indian gaming under IGRA since 2008.
  • Allowing the Ho-Chunk Nation to operate the Wittenberg Casino beyond the scope permitted in Ho-Chunk Nation’s gaming compact with the State since 2008.

More information and supporting documents can be found on the tribal website.

California Indian Law Association CLE Webinar November 30

CILA CLE Webinar

Visit http://www.calindianlaw.org/cle-webinar.html

Please join CILA for its CLE webinar hosted in partnership with Ceiba Legal, LLP on November 30, 2016 at 12:00 p.m.

The webinar is titled “Born Again Compacts: How an Evolution in the Definition of ‘Gaming Facilities’ May Lead to a More Intelligent Design of Intergovernmental Agreements,” and will feature a discussion of the following topics:

  • Kevin Washburn’s recent journal article entitled “Recurring Issues in Indian Gaming Compact Approval,” including a general overview of allowable topics for negotiation under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act;
  • How ancillary facilities such as hotels have been impermissibly included in compacts and county intergovernmental agreements;
  • Recent California trends related to ancillary facilities and how practitioners can use these new trends to their advantage when negotiating or renegotiating intergovernmental agreements; and
  • The unique ethical issues faced by attorneys when negotiating the best deal for the tribal client may set negative precedent for Indian Country.

Participants will receive 1 CLE credit.

Registration is free for CILA members and non-members may register for $50.00. The $50.00 registration fee includes CILA membership from October 2016 to October 2017.

Federal Bankruptcy Court Holds Sault Tribe Didn’t Waive Immunity

Earlier, the federal district court had held the federal bankruptcy act doesn’t abrogate tribal sovereign immunity.

Here are the materials in In re Greektown Holdings LLC (E.D. Mich. Bkrcy.):

649-1 Motion to Dismiss

668-buchwald-response

679-reply

728-order

Judge Dismisses Navajo Nation Challenge to State Jurisdiction in Personal Injury Suits at Casinos

Here are the materials in the matter of Navajo Nation et al v. Marsh et al, 15-cv-00799 (D. N.M. 2016):

Doc. 12 – Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 13 – Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 17 – McNeal Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 19 – Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 21 – Memorandum Opinion and Order

Link to previously posted complaint here.

Butte County Loses Challenge to NIGC Compact Approval

Here are the materials and documents in the matter of Butte County, CA v. Chadhouri et al, 08-cv-00519 (D.C. July 15, 2016):

Doc. 115 – Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 117 – United States’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 119 – Intervenor Mechoopda Indian Tribe’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 121 – Memorandum on Opposition to Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 124 – Intervenor Mechoopda Indian Tribe’s Consolidated Reply to Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Intervenor Mechoopda Indian Tribe’s Cross Motion For Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support Of Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment

Doc. 125 – United States’ Reply in Support of its Cross Motion for Summary Judgment

Doc. 128 – Memorandum-Decision and Order

Link to previous coverage here.