Federal Court Rejects Seneca Effort to Vacate Judgment on Gaming Payments to State

Here are the new materials in Seneca Nation v. State of New York (W.D. N.Y.):

California Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Secretarial Procedures for Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria

Here are the materials in Cal-PAC Rancho Cordova LLP v. Dept. of the Interior (E.D. Cal.):

Bill Wood on the Potential History of Indian Gaming

William Wood has published “The (Potential) Legal History of Indian Gaming” in the Arizona Law Review. PDF

Here is the abstract:

Indian gaming—casinos owned, operated, and regulated by Indian tribes—has been a transformative force for many Indigenous nations over the past few decades. The conventional narrative is that Indian gaming began when the Seminole Tribe of Florida opened a bingo hall in 1979, other tribes began operating bingo, litigation ensued across the continent, and the U.S. Supreme Court recognized tribes’ rights to operate casinos on their reservations in 1987, in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians. Congress then passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, ushering in the modern Indian gaming era.

This Article provides a heretofore-untold account of the early Indian gaming jurisprudence and related developments. Judges in the earliest Indian gaming cases, which have gone unnoticed, ruled against tribes. Then a series of cases involving the applicability of state law to mobile homes and cigarette and fireworks sales on Indian reservations produced a test under which states could exercise jurisdiction on reservations over activities they prohibit off-reservation but lack jurisdiction over activities they do not prohibit but only regulate. The Supreme Court used this test in Cabazon to hold that state laws did not apply to tribes’ bingo halls and cardrooms.

This Article details the development of the legal doctrine around Indian gaming and how the people involved—legal services attorneys working with legal scholars at the behest and on behalf of Indigenous peoples asserting their sovereignty against state pushback—changed the course of the jurisprudence, providing the framework that yielded the result in Cabazon and Indian gaming as it exists today.

Highly entertaining and recommended.

Palm Springs Desert Sun, March 31, 1971

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas Background Materials

Merits Stage

Petitioner’s Brief

Cert Stage

Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo’s Cert Petition

Brief of Amici Curiae Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, NCAI, NIGA, and USET in support of Cert Petition

Texas’ Cert Opp

Reply of petitioners Ysleta del Sur Pueblo

Brief amicus curiae of United States in favor of SCOTUS review

Texas’ Supplemental brief

Fifth Circuit

Texas v Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 5th Circuit Opinion

Pueblo Brief

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe Amicus Brief

Texas Brief


District Court

1 Complaint

9 texas motion for pi

17 tribe response

18 reply

54 tribe supplemental memo re cause of action

59 texas supplemental brief

64 magistrate report

67 tribe objection

68 texas objections

77 dct order

83 Tribe Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint

86 Texas Response

87 Answer + Counterclaims

90 Reply

97 Texas Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims

98 Tribe Response

99 Reply

115 DCT Order

121 First Amended Counterclaims

146 Texas Motion for Summary Judgment

147 Texas AG Motion for Summary Judgment

153 Tribe Response to Texas AG

154 Tribe Response to Texas

157 Texas Reply

158 Texas AG Reply

176 DCT Order on MSJ re Counterclaims

183 DCT Order

Tanner v. Cayuga Nation Cert Petition



Questions presented:

1. In view of Sherrill, whether New York tribes exercise “concurrent” jurisdiction over fee lands within the plenary taxing and regulatory authority of the state and local governments, thereby enabling those tribes to engage in gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), and cause the same or greater disruptions of settled expectations condemned by this Court in Sherrill.

2. Whether fee lands under plenary state and local taxation and regulation (per Sherrill) constitute “Indian lands” under IGRA because those lands are located within the Cayugas’ historic reservation.

3. Whether the Cayuga Nation’s ancient reservation was disestablished. 

Lower court materials here.

Seminole Gaming Compact Set Aside

Here are the orders (they are the same) in West Flagler Associates Ltd. v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

43 DCT Order

And in Monterra MF v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

55 DCT Order

Briefs in both cases here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer

Here is today’s order list.

Here are the cert stage materials.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California v. State of California


State Opening Brief

Counties Amicus Brief

Union Amicus Brief

Answer Brief

Tribal Amicus Brief


Lower court materials here.