IGRA – Page 22 – Turtle Talk

This case involves a dispute over a proposed casino in Amador County, California. Plaintiff, the County of Amador (“County”), challenges a 2012 record of decision (“ROD”) issued by the United States Department of the Interior (“Interior”) in which the agency announced its intention to take land into trust for the benefit of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (“Ione Band” or “Band”). The ROD also allowed the Ione Band to build a casino complex and conduct gaming on the land once it is taken into trust. Reviewing Interior’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), we conclude that the agency did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s award of summary judgment to Interior and the Ione Band.

Briefs here.

Kansas v. NIGC Cert Petition

October 3, 2017October 5, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether NIGC legal opinions that determine whether Indian lands are eligible for gaming under IGRA are reviewable final agency actions.

Lower court materials here.

Competitor Challenge to North Fork Rancheria Casino Continues

September 26, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Club One Casino Inc. v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

22 Motion to Supplement Administrative Record

25 Response

26 Reply

30 DCT Order

Federal Court Issues Split Decision in Flandrea Santee Sioux — South Dakota Tax Dispute

September 18, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Gerlach (D. S.D.):

79 State Motion for Summary J

117 Flandreau Motion for Summary J

124 State Opposition

130 Flandreau Opposition

136 Flandreau Reply

154 DCT Order

An excerpt:

1. The Tribe’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 115, is GRANTED to the extent that:

a. The State cannot impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services as to the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop (claim one).

2. The Tribe’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 115, is DENIED as to the following:

a. The State can impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store (claims one and three).

b. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not discriminatory (claim four)

3. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 78, is GRANTED to the extent that:

a. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not preempted by IGRA (claim one).

b. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not discriminatory (claim four).

c. The collection and remittance of taxes on nonmember consumer purchases at the Store are not preempted by federal law and do not infringe on tribal sovereignty (claims two and five).

4. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 78, is DENIED as to the following:

a. The State cannot impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services as to the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop (claim one).

b. The State cannot condition renewal of the Tribe’s beverage license on the collection and remittance of a use tax on nonmember consumer purchases (claims six and eight).

5. The State does not have jurisdiction to assess a use tax on nonmember purchases at the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop. However, the State does have jurisdiction to assess a use tax on nonmember purchases at the Store (claim seven).

6. Each party requested declaratory relief. Tribal sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature. This Court has no jurisdiction due to tribal sovereign immunity to order the ‘payment to the State from the escrow funds held pursuant to the Deposit Agreement. The Tribe, however, agreed in the Deposit Agreement that those funds would be held by the escrow agent pending the outcome of this lawsuit. Accordingly, the escrow agent may now, subject to any stay granted pursuant to an appeal, pay the funds held in escrow to the Tribe and to the State in their respective shares under the guidance provided by this declaratory judgment.

California Court of Appeals Holds Contract Breach Claim Preempted by IGRA

September 18, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Sharp Image Gaming v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (Cal. Ct. App.). An excerpt:

We conclude that IGRA preempts state contract actions based on unapproved “management contracts” and “collateral agreements to management contracts” as such agreements are defined in the IGRA regulatory scheme. Thus, the trial court erred by failing to determine whether the ELA and the Note were agreements subject to IGRA regulation, a necessary determination related to the question of preemption and the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. We further conclude that the ELA is a management contract and the Note is a collateral agreement to a management contract subject to IGRA regulation. Because these agreements were never approved by the NIGC Chairman as required by the IGRA and were thus void, Sharp Image’s action is preempted by IGRA. Consequently, the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.

Briefs here.