gaming – Page 33 – Turtle Talk

Michigan Gaming Compact Negotiation News Coverage

November 30, 2013November 30, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Fletcher law firm in Lansing, which specializes in Native American legal issues, has said when the 20-year-old agreements expire is up for interpretation. Some experts cite a provision implying that the deals automatically roll over for five years if no new ones are reached.

And from MLive:

The state is looking at getting back some of that revenue sharing, but tribes will generally oppose that unless the state offers meaningful concessions, said Zeke Fletcher, a Lansing-based tribal lawyer and citizen of the Grand Traverse Band. He is not representing any tribes in the negotiations.

Traditionally, “meaningful concessions” have meant statewide exclusive rights to offer Vegas-style, or class III gaming, Fletcher said. In more recent compacts the state secured revenue sharing in exchange for more of a regional protection from competition, according to a blog post from Fletcher’s colleague, Bryan Newland.

Newland’s posts are here and here.

Second Circuit Briefs in Challenge to Seneca’s Buffalo Casino

November 22, 2013October 29, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

UPDATE — these briefs have been superceded with final form briefs (whatever that means) available here.

Here are the materials in Citizens against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Hogen:

CACGEC Opening Brief

Federal Appellee Brief

Seneca Amicus Brief

CACGEC Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Cal. Secretary of State Certifies Referendum re: North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians and Wiyot Tribe Gaming Compacts

November 21, 2013November 21, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

SOS Certification

News coverage here.

NIGC and Interior Opinions on Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah)

November 18, 2013November 16, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Aquinnah Land Opinion 10-25-13 copy

2013.08.23 – Aquinnah Settlement Act Interpretation (signed)-2 copy

Oregon COA Affirms Governor’s Authority to Enter into Indian Gaming Compacts

November 15, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Dewberry v. Kitzhaber (Or. App.):

Oregon COA Opinion

Appellants Opening Brief

Respondents Joint Answer Brief

Tribal Amicus Brief

Appellants Reply Brief

An excerpt:

In summary, the Oregon legislature authorized the Governor to enter into agreements with tribes to ensure that the state does not infringe on tribal rights under federal laws, such as IGRA. The trial court correctly concluded that the Governor acted lawfully under ORS 190.110 in negotiating and entering into the tribal-state compact with the Tribes.

USET Gaming Resolution Opposing Exclusivity Agreements Infringing on Neighboring Tribes

November 13, 2013Kate Fort1 Comment

Here.

WHEREAS,

certain gaming Tribes, in order to eliminate competition, have sought to constrain the ability of neighboring nations to conduct Class III gaming on their lands by obtaining from the state government a promise of “geographic exclusivity” pursuant to which the state agrees to not allowany Class III gaming on all or a portion of the lands of such neighboring Indian nations; and

WHEREAS,

such agreements blatantly infringe upon the sovereign rights of neighboring Indian nations and

abrogate a state government’s statutory obligation, under IGRA, to negotiate, in good faith, a Class III compact with any resident Indian nation that desires to conduct Class III gaming anywhere within such nation’s borders;