Here are the updated materials in Cherokee Nation v. Jewell (N.D. Okla.):
News coverage here.
Prior post here.
The United States has filed an amicus curiae brief confirming that the trial court erred in disregarding the NIGC’s action. The United States confirmed that the state courts are required to defer to the agency’s views, as expressed in an NIGC opinion letter, the Chairman’s decision disapproving the agreement, and in the United States’ amicus brief, itself:
[T]he Superior Court was obliged to exercise its jurisdiction consistent with IGRA and IGRA’s bar on the enforcement of unapproved management contracts. Instead of acknowledging this bar and the need to resolve whether the ELA was an unapproved management contract (consistent with deference principles), the Superior Court simply denied the Tribe’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Chairman’s 2009 Disapproval was not “final agency action” binding on the state court. . . .
This is a non sequitur. A final disapproval decision by the NIGC is not necessary to render an unapproved management contract void. Such contract is and remains void unless and until the NIGC takes formal action to approve the contract. 25 C.F.R. §§ 533.1(a), 533.7. The NIGC’s disapproval of the ELA merely preserved the legal status quo. Thus, even if the 2009 Disapproval was invalid due to procedural errors – a question over which the Superior Court had no jurisdiction (see infra) – a ruling setting aside the NIGC’s decision would not resolve the preemption question.
. . .
[T]he present case involves the NIGC’s determination on a threshold legal issue involving an interpretation and application of the NIGC regulation defining “management contract.” The NIGC expressed its regulatory interpretation in the 2009 Disapproval and the 2007 OpinionLetter (as well as in the present amicus brief). The NIGC is entitled to deference in the interpretation of its own regulations, even when such interpretation is not rendered in a formal rulemaking or other final agency action.
Here is the United States’ brief and the parties’ briefs in response:
Sharp’s Response to United States’ Amicus Brief
Tribe’s Response to United States’ Amicus Brief
The merits briefs are here.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Livingston. An excerpt:
The panel affirmed convictions for mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) and theft by an officer or employee of a gaming establishment on Indian lands (18 U.S.C. § 1168(b)).
The panel held that the location of the gaming establishment is not an element of the offense under § 1168(b), and that the allegations in the indictment were sufficiently specific to apprise the defendant of the specific offenses with which he was charged.
The panel also held that the district court’s jury instructions correctly defined “intent to defraud,” and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting prior acts evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
Here are the materials:
Lower court materials here, here, here, and here.
Jeff Livingston was also the gaming manager at Grand Traverse Band.
Here is the indictment in United States v. Koster (W.D. Mich.):
News coverage here.
Here are materials from Smith v. Potawatomi Bingo Casino (E.D. Wis.):
Here are the materials in Board of Commissioners of Cherokee County Kansas v. Jewell (D. D.C.):
DCT Order Dismissing Cherokee County Suit
Cherokee County Motion for Summary J
News coverage here.
Here.
An excerpt:
Though Yoon won’t say if Weil is handling other Indian casino matters, there is likely be more such work for some work to snap up in the not-too-distant future. Moody’s downgraded its ratings on several Indian-owned casino bonds earlier this year, issuing a “probability of default” rating on $200 million worth of notes tied to a Sacramento casino operated by the Buena Vista band of the Me-Wuk Indian tribe and a similar warning on $300 million in notes connected to a Washington State casino operated by the Snoqualmie Tribe.
Here is the decision:
Here are the materials in Gameroom Superstores LLC v. Brodsky (M.D. Fla.):
You must be logged in to post a comment.