gaming

KBIC Proposed Gaming Facility in Marquette County Approved by Department of Interior; Cayuga Request Dismissed

Kate Fort

From the press release (though the embedded links with additional information aren’t yet working):

The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community is located in Baraga County, Mich., and has approximately 3,310 members. It has more than 6,000 acres of existing trust lands on its reservation in the state’s Upper Peninsula. The tribe has been operating and regulating a class III gaming facility in Marquette County, about 90 miles from its headquarters, since at least 2000. The tribe is proposing to relocate this existing facility to a new location within Marquette County, on an 80-acre parcel at the site of the former Marquette County Airport. The new site is 18 miles closer to the tribe’s reservation than its existing facility. Under a 2000 settlement agreement with the state of Michigan, the tribe has agreed to close its existing off-reservation gaming facility if its proposal receives final approval and it begins gaming activities on the new site.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) prohibits Indian gaming on lands acquired in trust after the law’s enactment in 1988, unless one of three explicitly crafted exceptions applies. The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community submitted its application under IGRA’s “Secretarial Determination” exception, which requires the Secretary to determine the proposed gaming establishment is in the best interest of the tribe and its citizens, and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community. The governor of Michigan must concur in this determination before the land can be acquired in trust for the tribe for gaming.

Interior also dismissed an application by the Cayuga Indian Nation, stating it was incomplete. Here is press coverage of that decision. Senator Schumer’s quote is particularly disheartening:

Schumer acknowledged that the battle over the Cayuga application could continue if the Cayugas submit a new application.

“I fought tooth and nail to have the Interior Department block this application, and am pleased that the federal government has heeded our call,” he said. “I’ll continue to stand side-by-side with homeowners, businesses, and county government leaders to oppose further attempts to take land into trust without the consent of Seneca and Cayuga counties.”

The Cayugas started the trust application process in 2005. The 125 acres it sought to place into federal trust includes part of the nation’s ancestral homeland around the north end of Cayuga Lake.

Documents are also available here

Update in Saginaw Chippewa Suit against NLRB

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Much like the 2009 letter from the Interior Solicitor’s Office in relation to the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, a new letter from the Interior Solicitor makes the same argument — that the National Labor Relations Act does not apply to Indian tribes — in relation to the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.

Here is the new letter (signed by Patrice Kunesh, Deputy Solicitor, Indian Affairs):

NLRB 12 7 11

Materials in Fine v. Pojoaque Pueblo Gaming Commission

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

News coverage here.

Fine Point has posted case materials here.

 

Alturas Indian Rancheria Gaming Funds Dispute Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is that order:

DCT Order Dismissing Alturas Complaint

And the materials:

USA Motion to Dismiss

Rose Faction Motion to Dismiss

The court had previously granted the plaintiffs a TRO. Here are those materials.

Contract Claim against La Jolla Band Dismissed by Federal Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

DCT Order Dismissing Gold River Complaint

La Jolla Band Motion to Dismiss

Gold River Response

La Jolla Band Reply

Bay Mills Indian Community, Council Members, and Gaming Commission Motions to Dismiss Amended State/LTBB Complaints

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are those materials:

BMIC Motion to Dismiss

BMIC Council Motion to Dismiss

BMIC Gaming Commission Motion to Dismiss

BMIC Motion to Dismiss LTBB Amended Complaint

Here is the State’s amended complaint.

Meanwhile, a Sixth Circuit panel is currently considering BMIC’s motion to strike its opponents briefs:

Referral of Motion to Strike

Federal Court Declines to Reconsider Rule 19 Dismissal of Friends of Amador County Challenge to Gaming Compact

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the updated materials in Friends of Amador County v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.):

Friends Motion to Amend Judgment

Tribe’s Opposition

DCT Order Denying Friends’ Motion

Here are the earlier materials.

Grand Rapids Press Coverage of Gun Lake Supreme Court Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. An excerpt:

WAYLAND TOWNSHIP — The Supreme Court will decide next year whether the federal government properly took land into trust for the Gun Lake Tribe to build a casino, in a case that experts say reaches far beyond the borders of Allegan County.

On Monday, the court agreed to hearformer Wayland Township trustee David Patchak’s reinstated lawsuit against the Gun Lake Band of Pottawatomi and the federal Interior Department, a case which could force the Gun Lake Casino to shut its doors.

The casino, which employs about 900 people, opened in February and has since paid out $10.4 million in state and local revenue sharing while raking in about $104 million in net profits on electronic games after payouts in less than a year of operation.

“This is an incredibly high-stakes case,” said Matthew Fletcher, a law professor at Michigan State University who specializes in Indian gaming law. “This casino is generating a lot of revenue — a lot more than they thought they would.”

But the Supreme Court, which accepts only about 3 to 4 percent of cases for which they’re petitioned each year, would not be scheduling arguments if the lawsuit were simply about jobs, profits and revenue sharing for municipalities, although that helps, said Fletcher.

Rather, the Roberts Court justices are likely hoping to clear-up a gray-area in the law that governs decisions by the Department of Interior about taking land in trust on behalf of Indian tribes; a wrinkle that bodes well for the tribe and the government, he said.

The Supreme Court typically reverses about 70 to 75 percent of cases they hear, Fletcher said. “They usually agree to hear a case when they think a lower court is wrong.”

Quick Commentary on SCOTUS, Patchak, and Corboy

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The Supreme Court granted cert in an Indian law case where the petition was filed in favor of tribal interests. This is, of course, the Patchak case involving the Department of Interior’s decision to take land into trust for gaming purposes on behalf of the Gun Lake Band. The last time the Court granted a petition filed on behalf of tribal interests was Cherokee Nation v. Leavitt, a case decided in 2005. The Court might also grant cert this Term in Ramah Navajo v. Salazar. Key to these successful cert petitions is the participation of the United States as supportive of the granting of the petition (if not the merits). In fact, every cert petition granted on behalf of tribal interests in recent memory has the support of the federal government, the last one (I believe) being Mississippi Band Choctaw v. Holyfield. Only Justice Scalia remains from that Court.

Key point: A cert petition on behalf of tribal interests has almost no chance of being granted by the Roberts Court unless the United States favors of the petition. Even then, as the Oneida and Cayuga land claims petitions demonstrates, it is a bit of a crap shoot.

Corboy v. Louie is more representative of where the Supreme Court is in relation to Indian law (though I suppose this isn’t an Indian law case, precisely). There’s nothing certworthy in this case whatsover (no split, nothing of national importance, a case brought by a private tax protester), but the Court is thinking carefully about this case perhaps because Indian law-type legal doctrines are outside of what Dean Getches called the “mainstream” of constitutional law, and should be reeled in. I have no doubt the OSG will recommend a denial because there simply is nothing worthy of Supreme Court review, but the fact this isn’t already a denied petition is telling.

Key point: A cert petition opposing tribal interests (regardless of its merit) receives more attention from the Supreme Court than a petition favoring tribal interests. End of story.

Constitutional Challenge to Arizona Indian Gaming Law Rejected

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion.