Here:
SCOTUSblog, by Markham Erickson
Yale Law Journal Online, by MF
Cornell Legal Information Institute, byKatherine Hinderlie and Rose Nimkiins Petoskey
Fantasy SCOTUS predicts an affirmance (83 percent?!?!?)
Here:
SCOTUSblog, by Markham Erickson
Yale Law Journal Online, by MF
Cornell Legal Information Institute, byKatherine Hinderlie and Rose Nimkiins Petoskey
Fantasy SCOTUS predicts an affirmance (83 percent?!?!?)
From the Alpena News:
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.
Here are the materials in Dewberry v. Kitzhaber (Or. App.):
Respondents Joint Answer 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.
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; andWHEREAS,such agreements blatantly infringe upon the sovereign rights of neighboring Indian nations andabrogate 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;
Here are the updated materials in Bettor Racing Inc. v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. S.D.):
35 DCT Order Allowing Intervention
36 Flandreau Answer and Counterclaim
Complaint was posted here.
The first commentary is from Native Nations Institute commentators Ryan Seelau and Dr. Ian Record:
Will the Supreme Court Use Bay Mills Case to Blow Up Tribal Sovereignty?
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/11/05/sovereign-immunity-and-bay-mills-case-how-tribes-can-prepare
The second commentary is from Gabriel Galanda and Ryan Dreveskracht of Galanda Broadman:
The Bay Mills Buck Stops With NIGC
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/11/06/bay-mills-buck-stops-nigc
You must be logged in to post a comment.