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.
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.”
Here are the materials in Harshe v. Grand Casino Hinckley (D. Minn.):
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
M&A Reply coming soon!
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.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.