Here are the materials so far in Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. NLRB:
Petition for Review – Filed Case No. 13-1569
The NLRB decision is here.
gaming
Tohono O’odham Nation Largely Prevails in Compact Breach Dispute with Arizona — One Issue Remains
Here is yesterday’s order in Arizona v. Tohono O’odham Nation (D. Ariz.):
An excerpt:
Defendant Tohono O’odham Nation (the “Nation”) plans to construct and operate a major casino on unincorporated land within the outer boundaries of the City of Glendale, Arizona, which is in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. The State of Arizona, the Gila River Indian Community, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (collectively “Plaintiffs”) argue that the proposed casino violates the 2002 Gaming Compact between the State of Arizona and the Nation (“the Compact”), and ask the Court to enjoin the casino’s construction. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the Court heard oral arguments on April 9, 2013. For reasons explained below, the Court will grant the Nation’s motion for summary judgment on all but one of Plaintiffs’ claims, and will require additional briefing on the remaining claim.
Briefs are here.
State Law Employment Discrimination Suit against Harrah’s Rincon Casino & Resort Dismissed
Here are the materials in Tavares v. Harrah’s Operating Co. (S.D. Cal.):
Update in Illegal Gambling Indictment at St. Regis Mohawk
Here are some updated materials in United States v. Gray (N.D. N.Y.):
DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
USA Response re Jock and Square
The post with the indictment is here. The search warrant from last December is here: Search Warrant
NLRB Asserts Jurisdiction over Soaring Eagle Casino (Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe)
Here is the decision:
Soaring Eagle Board Decision 16APR2013
This comes a few weeks after a similar decision involving the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians.
Update — NLRB Materials:
Administrative Law Judges Decision
SCIT Objections to ALJ Decision
Minnesota COA Forces Fond du Lac Band Back into State Court to Deal with City of Duluth’s Contract Breach Claim
Here is the unpublished opinion in City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Minn. App.).
Asked and Answered on Lansing Casino Litigation
Featuring “Steve” Matthew Fletcher. Here.
An excerpt:
Thorpe: What is likely to be the next step in this process and when might it take place?
Fletcher: The next step is to litigate the Section 9 question; that is, whether it applies at all because of MILCSA and, if so, whether it forecloses the fee to trust application. I was surprised that Judge Jonker shut down Sault Tribe this early in the process, but it really hurts the tribe. Had Sault Tribe put in their application, the federal government is a party. And especially if Interior took the land into trust, suddenly the United States is a defendant, and they’re much more difficult to defeat than a mere Indian tribe. And no one is better suited to know the implications of an injunction at this early date than Judge Jonker, with all his experience litigating against the United States in Indian gaming cases.
Thorpe: If you were a betting man, what would you say are the odds of the Lansing casino ever being built, at least be the current proposed ownership team?
Fletcher: Flip a coin. Sault Tribe, because of its advantageous position as a result of MILCSA, has the best chance of any tribe. But the Section 9 problem may shut it all down. Moreover, all it takes is one rider in an Interior appropriations bill to undercut that provision.
Federal Court Decides Cross-Motions for Summary J in Wyandotte Nation v. Salazar
Here are the materials:
Wyandotte Motion for Summary J
An excerpt:
Plaintiff Wyandotte Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe (“the Nation”), filed this lawsuit against Kenneth Salazar, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (“the Secretary”), seeking an order from this Court compelling the Secretary to accept title to certain land and hold it in trust for the Nation’s benefit, as specifically required by Public Law 98-602, 98 Stat. 3149 (1984) (“P.L. 98-602”), under both the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(a) and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The State of Kansas (“the State”) was permitted to intervene as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a).1 This matter is before the Court on the Nation’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 60) and the Secretary and State’s cross-motions for summary judgment (Docs. 66, 69). The Court heard oral arguments on March 14, 2013, at which time the Secretary was directed to supplement the Administrative Record and the matter was taken under advisement. For the reasons explained in detail below, the Court denies the Nation’s motion and grants in part and denies in part the Secretary and the State’s cross- motions, retaining jurisdiction over the case until the agency issues a final decision on the Nation’s pending land-into-trust application.
Prior posts on this case here, here, and here.
Poarch Band Creek Motion to Dismiss State of Alabama Suit Challenging Tribal Bingo under State Nuisance Theory
Here are the updated materials in State of Alabama v. PCI Gaming Authority (M.D. Ala.):
PBCI Notice of Removal + Exhibits
Prior post here.
News coverage here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.