gaming

SCOTUS Affirms in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

More details ASAP.

Opinion here. (PDF)

South Carolina Gambling Cruise Act Does Not Alter Statewide Ban on Video Gaming

Kate Fort

Opinion in Catawba Indian Nation v. South Carolina here.

We conclude the Tribe’s action is not precluded by collateral estoppel or res judicata and reverse this finding by the circuit court. We affirm, however, the circuit court’s determination that the Gambling Cruise Act does not authorize the Tribe to offer video poker on its Reservation in contravention of the existing statewide ban on video gambling devices.

Michigan Files Cert Petition against Sault Tribe in Lansing Casino Controversy

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the petition materials in Michigan v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians:

Michigan Cert Petition

Petition Appendix

Lower court materials here.

The CA6 stayed this matter, here, here, and here.

Federal Court Enforces EEOC Subpoena in ADEA Matter against Forest County Potawatomi

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in EEOC v. Forest County Potawatomi Community (W.D. Wis.):

3 EEOC Brief

7 Forest County Potawatomi Response

10 EEOC Reply

13 DCT Order Enforcing Subpoena

Minnesota Legislature Unhappy with Online Lottery Expansion

Andrew Adams III

The Minnesota Lottery rolled out online sales of PowerBall, Mega Millions, and other lottery tickets four years ago and earlier this year debuted instant online scratch off games. It seems that the online scratch offs have illicit the ire of members of the Minnesota Legislature. Some of the Legislators are calling what the Minnesota Lottery is doing as “online crack.” Interesting articles about this can be found at the following:

Pioneer Press

Star Tribune

CBS Minnesota

SCTimes

State-Wide Gaming Ban Referendum at Issue in Massachusetts

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts will soon decide whether a state-wide referendum to ban gaming can go forward.

Here are the briefs in Abdow v. Attorney General (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct.):

Interveners-Appellants Sarno Brief Interveners-Appellants Sarno Brief Intervener-Appellants Rizzo Sub Brief Intervener-Appellants Rizzo Sub Brief
Interveners-Appellants Ducharme Brief Interveners-Appellants Ducharme Brief Appellants Abdow Brief Appellants Abdow Brief
Amicus Public Health Advocacy Brief Amicus Public Health Advocacy Brief Interveners-Appellants Ducharme Suppl Brief Interveners-Appellants Ducharme Suppl Brief
Plaintiffs-Appellants Abdow Reply Brief Plaintiffs-Appellants Abdow Reply Brief Interveners-Appellants Sarno Reply Brief Interveners-Appellants Sarno Reply Brief
Amicus Greater Springfield Brief Amicus Greater Springfield Brief Amicus MA Building Trades Brief Amicus MA Building Trades Brief
Appellees Attorney General Brief Appellees Attorney General Brief Amicus Revere Interveners Brief Amicus Revere Interveners Brief
Amicus MA Competitive Partnership Brief Amicus MA Competitive Partnership Brief Amicus Stop Predatory Gambling Brief Amicus Stop Predatory Gambling Brief
Amicus Affiliated Chambers Brief Amicus Affiliated Chambers Brief Amicus Council Of Carpenters Brief Amicus Council Of Carpenters Brief
Amicus Town Of Plainville Brief Amicus Town Of Plainville Brief Amicus Coalition Of Citizens Brief Amicus Coalition Of Citizens Brief

Ninth Circuit Materials in Redding Rancheria Challenge to IGRA Section 20 Regulations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here are the materials in Redding Rancheria v. Salazar [Jewell]:

Redding Rancheria Opening Brief

Robinson Rancheria Amicus Brief

Interior Answer Brief

Redding Rancheria Reply

Oral argument audio here.

Lower court materials here and here.

Student Commentary on Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here, in the Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar. Titled A Tradition of Sovereignty: Examining Tribal Sovereign Immunity in Bay Mills Indian Community v. Michigan, written by Meredith L. Jewitt.

Puyallup Prevails over IRS in Dispute over Levy Notice Seeking Per Capital Payments

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Puyallup Tribe of Indians (W.D. Wash.):

20 US Cross Motion for Summary J

21 Puyallup Cross Motion for Summary J

22 US Response

23 Puyallup Response

24 DCT Order Granting Tribe’s Motion

An excerpt:

The Government contends that, based on custom and practice, the per capita payments were fixed and determinable. The Government admits that “this is a matter of first impression” (Dkt. 22 at 16), and the Court declines to adopt the Government’s proposition that the rule that levies may attach to discretionary, yet customary payments. Just like there is no guarantee that a subsequent deposit will be made to a levied bank account, there is no guarantee that Turnipseed will receive another per capita payment. While the Tribe strives to provide for its members, it still makes a discretionary monthly decision whether it shall do so. Moreover, the fact that a payment is likely is the same as classifying a sale of personal property as likely. But, according to the regulations, a levy cannot attach until the individual has actually sold the item. Therefore, the Court concludes that the levies in question did not attach to Turnipseed’s per capita payments.

Federal Court Dismisses Alabama v. PCI Gaming Authority

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in State of Alabama v. PCI Gaming Authority (M.D. Ala.):

1 PBCI Notice of Removal + Exhibits

14 PBCI Motion to Dismiss

17 Alabama Opposition

21 US Amicus Brief

31 Alabama Response to US Amicus

33 Michigan Amicus Brief

35 Poarch Band Reply

43 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss