Here.
Quoting Fletcher:
The case is narrowly focused on the state’s ability to sue under the tribal-state compact — not the merits of the casino question itself, said Matthew Fletcher, director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center at Michigan State University.
Here.
Here’s my take:
The best course of action, said Michigan State University law professor Matthew Fletcher, who monitors legal issues in Indian country, is to wait until the … government settles the tribe’s leadership dispute.
“It just seems to me there is no rush on this judgment,” Fletcher said. “Just wait until this is all over — that would be my advice if I was the sheriff’s attorney.”
Statement by the Bay Mills Indian Community regarding today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court
Please attribute the following statement to Bay Mills Indian Community
Tribal Chairman Kurt Perron
The U.S. Supreme Court decides to review Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Case
The Bay Mills Indian Community is deeply concerned by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to review this case as it is in any case where it appears the Court may examine the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. We remain confident that the nation’s highest Court will agree with our position.
Q: What is next?
A: The Tribe will be preparing its arguments to convince the Court of the correctness of the decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
BACKGROUND
Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act
The Bay Mills Indian Community received funds from the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1997 and purchased property in Vanderbilt. Any land purchased with the land claim money becomes a tribal reserve and thus can be the site of a tribal casino.
Bay Mills Indian Community
The Bay Mills Indian Community is a federally recognized Indian tribe with a reservation in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. In 1993, the Tribe entered a Tribal-State compact with the State of Michigan, pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Bay Mills operates two casinos on its reservation in Chippewa County, Michigan.
###
The Three Affiliated Tribes plans to dedicate a yacht next month that eventually will be used for a riverboat gambling operation on the Missouri River in North Dakota.
The tribe earlier this year reached an agreement with the state to allow for the expansion of gambling on the Fort Berthold Reservation, which straddles the Lake Sakakawea reservoir on the Missouri. A yacht currently is being assembled at the tribally owned 4 Bears Casino and Lodge west of New Town, the Minot Daily News reported.
Here.
This is interesting:
Governor Snyder did state that he was open to relocation as part of a broader agreement between the tribe and the state. Potential points for such an agreement include:
· Allowing local governments to have some say in the disposition of the 2 percent local casino revenue sharing payments
· The tribe entering into an agreement requiring the tribal businesses to collect tax on transactions with non-Native Americans
· Working out a revised revenue sharing agreement so the tribe would continue to make some level of payments to the state, even if future gaming competition develops elsewhere in the state. Currently, the KBIC is the only tribe with gaming operations in the state that has an agreement that would stop revenue payments if state-authorized gaming was expanded in Michigan.
In a two-part determination, which allows the governor to concur or not, these points are irrelevant. However, in a compact negotiation, these points appear to put KBIC in a very strong negotiating position in that the governor’s demands appear to violate IGRA’s requirement that the governor negotiate in good faith. Asking for more revenue sharing without any meaningful economic concessions, and demanding tribal tax collection, and demanding the institution of a local revenue sharing board — way overboard, in my view. Will be interesting to see what KB does — go with the Secretarial procedures, or simply sue the governor under the 1993 compacts and litigate good faith.
Here are the materials in Wells Fargo Bank v. Chukchansi Economic Development Authority (N.Y. Sup. Ct.):
Here is the opinion in Big Bubba’s BBQ, LLC v. Mohegan Tribal Gaming Auth. (Conn. Super.) (PDF).
An excerpt:
As a matter of fact and of law, this court finds no waiver of sovereign immunity that would permit this court to proceed with this case. More specifically, the court finds no such waiver as to a suit under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 47a–43, whether the trial be by court or jury (see Conn. Gen.Stat. § 47a–44 and § 47a–45), or as to the equitable relief sought in this case (see Conn. Gen.Stat. § 47a–45a(a), including restitution, and § 52–471 et seq., as to an injunction with or without bond) or as to any potential (but not pled) double damages claim (see Conn. Gen.Stat. § 47a–46).
Today’s order list.
Curious. It could mean several things. Most likely is that one of the Justices is thinking about drafting a dissent from the denial of certiorari. We’re not aware of any similar cases in the pipeline that would compel a hold, which is another possibility.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.