gaming

Sault Tribe Renews Motion to Dismiss Michigan’s Lansing Casino Suit in Federal District Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

49 Renewed Motion to Dismiss

This, in light of the State’s withdraw of its cert petition.

Calif. COA Briefs in California Miwok Tribe v. Calif. Gambling Control Commission II

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Tribal Opening Brief

CGCC Response Brief

Intervenors Brief

Tribal Reply Brief

Earlier proceedings here.

Clinton White House Papers Release — Seminole Tribe v. Florida & Other Indian Matters

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here (PDF). Interesting stuff, especially the memorandum by now-Justice Elena Kagan starting on page 4.

 

Fort Sill Apache Sues NIGC — New Mexico Gaming Lands

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Fort Sill Apache Tribe v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

1-2 Exhibit 1 Part 1

1-3 Exhibit 1 Part 2

1-4 Exhibit 1 Part 3

1-5 Exhibit 2

Michigan Withdraws Cert Petition in Michigan v. Sault Tribe

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Ltr Clerk Withdraw 13-1372

Continue reading →

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe Cert Opposition Brief

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

SSM Cert Opp Brief

Filed right before the decision in Michigan v. Bay Mills came out, so it doesn’t take that case’s outcome into consideration.

 

Materials (So Far) in Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Texas Hold ‘Em Poker Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here are the materials in State of Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe (D. Idaho):

3-1 Idaho Motion for TRO

15-1 Coeur d’Alene Tribe Motion to Dismiss

16 Coeur d’Alene Opposition to Motion for TRO

20 Shoshone-Bannock Motion to File Amicus Brief

25 Idaho Reply

28 DCT Order Granting Motion to File Amicus Brief

 

Federal Court Orders Garnishment of Gila River Member’s Per Caps

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Webb (D. Ariz.):

153 US Writ for Garnishment

162 Webb Response

175 MJ R&R

177 DCT Order

 

National Native News Podcast; Includes Segment on Bay Mills

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. Second story in the newscast.

Amy Howe at SCOTUSBlog on Bay Mills

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here, “Opinion details: Victory for Native American tribes . . . for now?”

An excerpt:

The Court acknowledged the “apparent anomaly” in the law:  although states can sue tribes for illegal gaming activity on Indian lands, they cannot sue them for the same activity off Indian lands.  “But,” the Court continued, “this Court does not revise legislation . . . just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address.”  And – significantly – even if the state can’t sue a tribe for off-reservation illegal gaming, it still “has many other powers over tribal gaming that it does not possess (absent consent) in Indian territory.”  Most state laws will apply to Indians off reservation, for example:  Michigan “could, in the first instance, deny a license” for an off-reservation casino; if the tribe went ahead with the project anyway, it could sue tribal officials to stop the gaming activity and, if necessary, invoke its criminal laws.  Moreover, states also could seek a waiver to allow lawsuits for off-reservation gaming activity as part of its compact with the tribe regarding on-reservation gaming.