Oklahoma Sup. Ct. Decides Land Title Dispute involving Non-Recognized Tribe

Here is the short opinion in Perme v. Southern Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.

An exceprt:

In August 2000, Dynamic Gaming Solutions, Inc. (Dynamic), entered into an agreement with Gary Ridge, who represented himself as the Chief of the Southern Cherokee Nation. Pursuant to said agreement, Dynamic agreed to purchase two pieces of property in Webber Falls, Oklahoma, for the purpose of constructing a casino. Such casino operation was represented to be legally possible, according to Mr. Ridge, because the Southern Cherokee were a legitimate Indian tribe and, therefore, were a sovereign nation able to construct and operate a gaming business. Mr. Perme, who was a principal in Dynamic, agreed, as part of such transaction, to purchase eighty (80) acres for the benefit of Mr. Ridge and his tribe. The subject eighty (80) acres was deeded on August 28, 2000, by Richard A. Hayes and his wife, Margaret A. Hayes, to “The United States of America to be held in trust for the Southern Cherokee Indian Tribe.”

Title VII Reverse Discrimination Complaint against Mille Lacs’ Grand Casino Hinckley Dismissed

Here are the materials in Harshe v. Grand Casino Hinckley (D. Minn.):

Magistrate R&R re Harshe Complaint

DCT Order Dismissing Harshe Complaint

North Carolina Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Eastern Band Cherokee Gaming Compact

The case is McCracken and Amick Inc v. Perdue. Appellate court materials are here. The original trial court order is here.

Here are the briefs so far:

McCracken and Amick Petition for Discretionary Review

McCracken and Amick Brief

North Carolina Brief

M&A Reply coming soon!

D.C. Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Amador County Challenge to Gaming Compact Approval re: Buena Vista Me-Wuk

Here is today’s opinion in Amador County v. Salazar. Briefs are here. Lower court materials are here.

An excerpt:

Pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians entered into a compact with the state of California to engage in gaming on its tribal land and then petitioned the Secretary of the Interior for approval of that compact. Under the Act, “[i]f the Secretary does not approve or disapprove a compact . . . [within] 45 days . . . the compact shall be considered to have been approved by the Secretary, but only to the extent the compact is consistent with the provisions of” the Act. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8)(C). In this case, the Secretary took no action within forty-five days, thus allowing the compact to become effective. Amador County, in which the Buena Vista Tribe’s land is located, challenged the Secretary’s “no-action” approval, claiming that the land fails to qualify as “Indian Land”—a statutory requirement for gaming. Although the district court rejected the Secretary’s argument that Amador County lacked standing, it dismissed the suit, finding the Secretary’s inaction unreviewable under several provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. Amador County now appeals. We agree with the district court that the County has standing, but because we conclude that the Secretary’s inaction is in fact reviewable, we reverse and remand for the district court to consider the merits in the first instance.

Tohono O’odham Trust Acquisition Enjoined under Rule 62(c) in Gila River Indian Community v. US

Here is that order:

Injunction in GRIC v. United States 05-03-2011

Previously, the court had granted summary judgment to the United States (materials here).

Tohono O’odham Nation v. City of Glendale — Ariz. COA Reverses Condemnation of Land TON Proposed to Use for Casino

Here is the opinion. And here are the briefs.

An excerpt:

The Tohono O’odham Nation (“Nation”) appeals the grant of summary judgment to the City of Glendale (“Glendale”) on Nation’s challenge to Glendale’s purported annexation of real property owned by Nation. For the reasons that follow, we hold that when the validity of a municipality’s annexation ordinance is timely challenged in court, the annexation does not automatically become final thirty days after the ordinance was
adopted. Accordingly, we reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of Glendale and remand for entry of judgment in favor of Nation.

Mash. Pequot Effort to Enforce Tribal Court Judgment in N.Y. Fails

Here is the order in Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprises v. Lin (N.Y. Sup. Ct.):

MPGE v Lin

New Book on California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians

Ralph A. Rossum has published, “The Supreme Court and Tribal Gaming: California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians,” as part of Landmark Law Cases and American Society series from the University of Kansas Press. 

Here is the press’s blurb:

When the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians—a small tribe of only 25 members—first opened a high-stakes bingo parlor, the operation was shut down by the State of California as a violation of its gambling laws. It took a Supreme Court decision to overturn the state’s action, confirm the autonomy of tribes, and pave the way for other tribes to operate gaming centers throughout America.

Ralph Rossum explores the origins, arguments, and impact of California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the 1987 Supreme Court decision that reasserted the unique federally supported sovereignty of Indian nations, effectively barring individual states from interfering with that sovereignty and opening the door for the explosive growth of Indian casinos over the next two decades.

Rossum has crafted an evenhanded overview of the case itself—its origins, how it was argued at every level of the judicial system, and the decision’s impact—as he brings to life the essential debates pitting Indian rights against the regulatory powers of the states. He also provides historical grounding for the case through a cogent analysis of previous Supreme Court decisions and legislative efforts from the late colonial period to the present, tracking the troubled course of Indian law through a terrain of abrogated treaties, unenforced court decisions, confused statutes, and harsh administrative rulings.

In its decision, the Court held that states are barred from interfering with tribal gaming enterprises catering primarily to non-Indian participants and operating in Indian country. As a result of that ruling—and of Congress’s subsequent passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act—tribal gaming has become a multibillion dollar business encompassing 425 casinos operated by 238 tribes in 29 states. Such enormous growth has funded a renaissance of reservation self-governance and culture, once written off as permanently impoverished.

As Rossum shows, Cabazon also brings together in one case a debate over the meaning of tribal sovereignty, the relationship of tribes to the federal government and the states, and the appropriateness of having distinctive canons of construction for federal Indian law. His concise and insightful study makes clear the significance of this landmark case as it attests to the sovereignty of both Native Americans and the law.

“Some view Cabazon as an emphatic ruling supporting tribal sovereignty, while others see it as a deeply compromised decision that elevated state government’s role in internal native affairs. Rossum deftly situates the case historically, legally, and culturally, and persuasively argues that this is one of the more important decisions ever handed down by the High Court.”—David E. Wilkins, author of American Indian Sovereignty and the U.S. Supreme Court

“Rossum’s well researched book hits all the crucial topics and deals comprehensively with a host of complex issues in a clear, concise, and interesting manner. I wholeheartedly endorse it.”—Alexander Tallchief Skibine, S.J. Quinney Professor of Law, University of Utah

RALPH A. ROSSUM is Salvatori Professor of American Constitutionalism at Claremont McKenna College and author of Antonin Scalia’s Jurisprudence, also from Kansas.

N.M. SCT to Consider State-Law Dram Shop Actions and Tribal Immunity under N.M. Indian Gaming Compacts

The New Mexico Court of Appeals last May decided Mendoza v. Tamaya Enterprises, Inc. (opinion link here), holding in part that the New Mexico Indian gaming compact signed by the Pueblo of Santa Ana waived tribal immunity in state court to state-law dram shop actions. The New Mexico Supreme Court agreed to review this case.

As readers will know, we’ve been following multiple state cases involving tribal immunity from state law dram shop actions (e.g., cases involving the Mohegans, and tribes in Washington and Oklahoma; broader discussion here).

As Pechanga reported, one personal injury firm in ABQ suggests that Mendoza “significantly curtailed tribal immunity.” That seems to be an exaggeration — at least when it comes to the common law of tribal immunity — in that it appears likely that the New Mexico compacts include a sufficiently broad waiver. But that remains to be seen as well.

State of Alabama’s Expert on Class II Bingo Formerly Consulted for NIGC and Worked for Many Indian Tribes

As reported on Indianz and Pechanga the last few days, the State of Alabama’s retained expert, D. Robert Sertell,  on technical gaming issues took issue with the NIGC’s determination that Poarch Band of Creek Indians gaming operations are legal. Here’s a quote from a news article titled “FBI could raid Alabama’s Indian casinos, says gambling expert,” that quotes Sertell extensively:

Sertell visited Poarch Creek gaming operations and concluded in a 2004 report that their machines did not qualify as Class II gaming and were therefore illegal.

In a telephone interview this month, Sertell questioned the competence and integrity of the national commission, saying Stevens’ letter “ignores federal law so hard, it’s almost laughable.”

“NIGC’s executives are all members of Indian tribes,” he said of the commission. “This is Indians regulating Indians.”

In addition to not wanting to “alienate their Indian relatives and friends,” the agency is also inclined to ignore illegal gambling operations because increased Indian gambling revenue means more funding for the commission, Sertell said.

As Sertel’s CV (Sertell CV, not sure how old this is) notes, he has worked for many, many Indian tribes on technical issues. He even wrote an expert report for Shingle Springs Miwok years ago (Shingle Springs Declaration). Also, he consulted with the NIGC from 1998-2001, during a period of time in which NIGC’s position was that virtually all electronic bingo should be classified as Class III, a position rejected by two federal circuits (Tenth Circuit and Eighth Circuit).