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
Here is the unpublished opinion in City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Minn. App.).
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.
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.
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.
Here is the complaint in Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Stevens (D. D.C.):
An excerpt:
This is a civil action against the United States National Indian Gaming Commission and its officials (collectively, the “Chairwoman,” the “Commission,” the “NIGC,” or “Defendants”) under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, et seq. and 701, et seq., seeking mandamus and related relief compelling the Commission to comply with its statutory duty to approve and publish gaming ordinance amendments submitted by the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians (“Tribe”).
Here’s a new article in the Georgetown Law Journal asking whether poker is a game of chance or skill, with implications on the enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. Here is the abstract:
In 2006, Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), prohibiting the knowing receipt of funds for the purpose of unlawful gambling. The principal consequence of the UIGEA was the shutdown of the burgeoning online poker industry in the United States. Courts determine whether a game is prohibited gambling by asking whether skill or luck is the “dominant factor” in the game. We argue that courts’ conception of a dominant factor— whether chance swamps the effect of skill in playing a single hand of poker—is unduly narrow. We develop four alternative tests to distinguish the impact of skill and luck, and we test these predictions against a unique data set of thousands of hands of Texas Hold ‘Em poker played for sizable stakes online before the passage of the UIGEA. The results of each test indicate that skill is an important influence in determining outcomes in poker. Our tests provide a better framework for how courts should analyze the importance of skill in games, and our results suggest that courts should reconsider the legal status of poker.
View .pdf for full Article.
Now we’ll have to fend off the online gaming spammers inundating our comments….
Here is a new student article, “Shooting Craps: How Denying Tribal Casinos Bankruptcy Relief Ensures that Everyone Loses and a New Rule to Provide Potential Chapter 11 Relief,” available on SSRN. It will be published in the Temple Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
In August 2012, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California dismissed a Chapter 11 petition filed by the Santa Ysabel Resort and Casino finding that the casino was an ineligible debtor under the Bankruptcy Code. This Essay critiques the decision of the Bankruptcy Court and suggests that tribal casinos should not be summarily excluded from filing for bankruptcy. This is because the federal Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act dictates the corporate form of Indian casinos but potentially excludes them as eligible debtors.
Instead, this Essay proposes a new rule that courts should use when evaluating Tribal Casinos as semi-sovereign entities in Chapter 11 proceedings. Ultimately, this rule would allow certain tribal casinos to avail themselves of bankruptcy protection while still complying with federal law.
Here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.