Another example of states beating the feds to the punch on expansion of gaming and potential internet gaming…and increasing competition with Indian gaming.
My favorite quote of the articles covering this:
“It’s a busy world,” said Minnesota Lottery Executive Director Ed Van Petten, “so this is an attempt to reach that person.”
Here is the dissent from the order denying en banc review:
CA2 Dissent from Denial of En Banc Petition — Shinnecock
The panel opinion and briefs are here.
Here:
Lower court materials here.
Here.
The tribe has moved to dismiss and to oppose the State’s request for a preliminary injunction.
Sault Tribe Response to Motion for PI
The complaint is here.
News coverage is here.
Here are the appellee briefs in Warren v. United States:
Brief for Seneca Nation Amicus
Lower court materials here.
The City transferred the land to the Sault Tribe (here). Nothing all that terribly exciting — a chance to show off before the cameras.
In anticipation of today’s 11AM press conference at the Lansing Center (Casino Project Moves Forward – ADVISORY), casino opponents have issued the following preemptive comments:
Attribute the following statement to James Nye, coalition spokesman, for the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe and Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi:
“For over a decade, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe has unsuccessfully pursued off-reservation casinos hundreds of miles from its reservation. These efforts have been rejected by the U.S. Congress, the State of Michigan, and the U.S. Department of Interior.
“People should not be fooled; this latest effort to build a casino in Lansing is just another loser. The Sault Tribe has argued that under the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act it can build a casino anywhere in the United States. That conflicts with federal law, and it violates the Tribe’s state gaming compact.
“We will continue to aggressively fight this ill-conceived casino at the federal and state level, and in the courts. We are very confident that this effort will fail just like the Tribe’s past efforts.”
Third Collective Bargaining Agreement Signed under Tribal Law
The Little River Casino Resort and the United Steelworkers Union have entered into a collective bargaining agreement covering the Resort’s EVS Bargaining Unit. This is the third collective bargaining agreement entered into by the Resort and the Union under tribal law.
“We are proud of our Tribe’s success in governing labor and employment relations,” said Larry Romanelli, the elected Ogema of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians. “These three collective bargaining agreements between the Resort and the USW are concrete examples of tribal sovereignty at work.”
In 2007, the Band enacted a law governing labor unions and collective bargaining modeled on public sector labor relations laws. The law allows collective bargaining within the Band’s public sector, which includes its gaming operations at the Little River Casino Resort. It requires unions to hold a license from the Band, and it provides a structure for union elections, bargaining rules, and the resolution of unfair labor practice charges. “We found much to learn from the way state governments regulate collective bargaining,” said Stephen Parsons, the elected Speaker of the Band’s Tribal Council, which enacted the law. “In the end, however, this law reflects the unique values of our Ottawa community.”
Few Indian nations have laws governing collective bargaining. The short list includes the Navajo Nation and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation.
Here is the memorandum opinion in Carter v Arizona Industrial Commission (Ariz. App.).
Here is the petition:
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari MI v BMIC
Better pdf here: Michigan v Bay Mills Cert Petition
Questions Presented:
1. Whether a federal court has jurisdiction to enjoin activity that violates IGRA but takes place outside of Indian lands.
2. Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars a state from suing in federal court to enjoin a tribe from violating IGRA outside Indian lands.
Sixth Circuit materials here.
My earlier views on why this petition isn’t going anywhere are here. I would add now that since Bay Mills, as I understand it, hasn’t re-opened the casino, and since the State filed an amended complaint way back when, there doesn’t seem to be much pressure to grant this particular petition. Also, if this is really an IGRA fight over an allegedly illegal casino, it’s really the federal government’s fight. In fact, NIGC already referred the matter to the federal prosecutors … a while back. Michigan is trumping up an alleged compact violation that might not even exist. There might be a compact violation, or not, but the State in its petition doesn’t even point to which provision in the compact BMIC is violating (maybe they did, but I didn’t see it).
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.