Here:
Here is the complaint.
News article here.
Here are the materials in Allman v. Creek Casino Wetumpka (M.D. Ala.):
Magistrate Recommendation on Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Here.
An excerpt:
Rescinding a Bush-era rule, the Interior Department said Tuesday that it would consider allowing Indian tribes to build casinos far from their reservations, raising the possibility that new gambling resorts could be built close to New York and elsewhere around the country.
The rule, adopted in January 2008, said that tribes could not open casinos beyond commuting distance from their reservations, and led to the rejection of at least 22 applications, including one by the St. Regis Mohawk tribe, which wanted to build a casino 350 miles from its reservation and 90 miles northwest of New York City.
Another tribe seeking to build a casino near New York, the Stockbridge-Munsee, sued the department over the ruling, and New York’s senior senator,Charles E. Schumer, lobbied heavily to have it overturned.
On Tuesday, Larry Echo Hawk, the assistant secretary for Indian affairs at the department, said the rule was being rescinded, adding that it “was unnecessary and was issued without the benefit of tribal consultation.”
Here is the court’s unpublished opinion in Horizon Engineering Services Corp. v. Lakes Entertainment Inc.
An excerpt:
In January 2005, the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, a federally recognized Indian tribe, hired respondent Lakes Entertainment, Inc. (LEI) to assist in developing, financing, and constructing a casino on Pawnee land in Chilocco, Oklahoma, and to provide consulting services for the project. The agreement was as memorialized in a gaming development consulting agreement (GDCA) between LEI and the Pawnee Chilocco Gaming Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Pawnee Nation, formed to develop Pawnee gaming facilities, including the Chilocco casino.
As Indianz reported, ASIA Larry Echo-Hawk has pulled the much-maligned 2008 guidance memo on off-reservation gaming. What impact will that decision have?
You may click on more than one. Clicking means you think “yes.” Not clicking means you think “no.”
Here is that brief:
Supplemental Brief of Petitioners in Response to United States
The Supreme Court placed this case up for discussion at the June 23 Conference.
Here is the complaint in South Florida Entertainment Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida (S.D. Fla.):
Here’s the first paragraph:
1. This action, in material part, seeks declaratory relief wherein SFLE and individual Plaintiffs seek to have this Court declare that the Tribe has violated the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § § 1301 and 1302 (the “ICRA”) and to order further necessary and proper relief in favor of SFLE pursuant to 28 US.C. §2202. Among other things, SFLE believes and contends that the Tribe is incapable of meeting its quasi-Constitutional obligation to provide due process of law under the ICRA due to its admitted failure to create and maintain a tribal court system or any other legitimate forum for ensuring compliance with the ICRA and the Constitutional-like protections it is intended to grant to members and non-Tribal members, alike. SFLE also seeks a declaration concerning whether the Tribe’s administration of the issuance of Tribal Liquor Licenses comports with or violates federal law, namely 18 U.S.C. §§1154, 1156 and 1161. SFLE also seeks a judicial declaration that the Tribe has contractually waived sovereign immunity with respect to disputes involving the Tribe, the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino which it operates and owns, SPR, and its commercial tenants and subtenants, like SFLE as well as the individual Plaintiffs. Moreover, each Plaintiff alleges that the Tribe solely controls SPR, as indicated in several pieces of correspondence with Plaintiffs. Proof of such control is reflected in Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibit “C” where the Defendant Tribe specifically alleges that it does business as SPR. The individual’s Plaintiffs, PENDLETON and PRIOLO, also allege damages for various tort claims against both Defendants, as stated within the various Counts herein below.
Here is a link to the program. And the summary:
Some Native American tribes in Washington state are bailing out financially troubled local governments. Most native tribes are still among the poorest communities in the U.S. But in Washington, casino revenue has allowed tribes to make big donations to school districts and even to fund local government positions.
Here is the brief:
Here:
Transcript Oral Argument DCCircuit Amador County v USA Case
Some very striking comments from the judges on the ability of outsiders to challenge the viability of gaming compacts between tribes and states, especially the import of the Patchak case. Worth a read.
You must be logged in to post a comment.