Bay Mills appeal to stay the preliminary injunction issued by the district court in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. Bay Mills Indian Community & State of Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community was denied by the Sixth Circuit today. The document is here.
Our previous coverage of this appeal is here, previous coverage of this case is here.
Here are the new materials in Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. South Dakota (D. S.D.):
South Dakota Motion for Summary J
Flandreau Motion for Judgment on Pleadings
DCT Order Denying Summary Judgment.
Previous posts on this case are here (governor’s obligation to testify) and here (tribal financial docs).
Here is the opinion in Mendoza v. Tamaya Enterprises, Inc. News article here.
Along with Oklahoma, New Mexico is one of the few states to allow state law dram shop actions against tribal businesses. And, along with Oklahoma, the reasoning behind the decision is tied to the state-specific jurisdictional scheme created in the tribal gaming compacts.
Here are the materials in City of Yreka v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Granting Summary J to Government
An excerpt:
Plaintiffs argue that the regional director failed to consider the impact of gaming uses. (Pls.’ Mot. at 6:26–7:28; Pls.’ Opp’n at 4:22–28.) However, the Secretary need not consider “speculati[ve]” future uses of the land. See City of Lincoln City, 229 F.Supp.2d at 1124; see e.g., South Dakota I, 423 F.3d at 801, 801 n. 9 (holding that “the Secretary was not required to seek out further evidence of possible gaming purposes in light of the Tribe’s repeated assurances that it did not intend to use the land for gaming,” a letter from the then-state governor stating that he had been assured that the tribe would not conduct gaming on the land, and the tribe’s acknowledgment that “if it were later to seek to allow gaming on the land, it would fully comply with the additional application and approval requirements in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721”). As the IBIA’s decision explained the issue:
This fear … is entirely speculative. Nothing in the record suggests that the Tribe contemplates the use of the parcel for gaming. To the contrary, not only does the Tribe admit that the land does not qualify for gaming use under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2719(a), but the Tribe contends that the renovated site is completely developed and could not feasibly or fiscally-responsibly be used for gaming even if the Tribe wanted it to be so used. Additionally Tribal Resolution No. 07–R–160, approved on December 19, 2007, explicitly eschewed the use of the parcel for gaming.
City of Yreka, 51 IBIA at 296–97. Accordingly, the regional director adequately considered the tribe’s purpose for the land.
Here are those briefs (so far):
BMIC Motion to Stay Injunction
Here:
DCT Order Granting Stay in TON Trust Acquisition Case
The earlier order granting summary judgment to the federal government is 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.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.