IGRA – Page 23 – Turtle Talk

Whether the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a statute of general application, impliedly repealed other federal statutes that specifically subject Indian tribes to state restrictions on gaming, a question that has divided the courts of appeals.

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE:

Aquinnah Cert Opp

Ninth Circuit Argument Video in Appeals in Challenge to Ione Band Gaming Related Trust Acquisition

August 3, 2017August 3, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the video in No Casino in Plymouth v. Zinke (briefs here).

Here is the video in County of Amador v. Dept. of Interior (briefs here).

Ninth Circuit Briefs in State of California v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel

July 31, 2017March 19, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Opening Brief

Answer Brief

Reply Brief

Case materials here.

Oral argument video here.

“Sault Tribe’s trust land application denied for Lansing casino”

July 27, 2017July 31, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

If anyone has the denial letter, please send it along.

Here it is. And here:

2017-07-24 DOI Cason ltr to Sault Ste. Marie denying mandatory trust acqn

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Citizens for a Better Way v. Zinke

July 18, 2017October 31, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Opening Brief

Federal Response Brief

Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe Answer Brief

Tenth Circuit Holds NIGC Indian Lands Opinion Letters Not Final Agency Action

June 27, 2017June 28, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in State of Kansas v. Zinke.

An excerpt:

The question in this case is whether a legal opinion letter issued by the Acting General Counsel of the National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”) regarding the eligibility of Indian lands for gaming constitutes “final agency action” subject to judicial review. In response to a request from the Quapaw Tribe, the NIGC Acting General Counsel issued a legal opinion letter stating that the Tribe’s Kansas trust land was eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”). The State of Kansas and the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Cherokee, Kansas, filed suit, arguing that the letter was arbitrary, capricious, and erroneous as a matter of law. The district court concluded that the letter did not constitute reviewable final agency action under IGRA or the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. IGRA’s text, statutory scheme, legislative history, and attendant regulations demonstrate congressional intent to preclude judicial review of legal opinion letters. Further, the Acting General Counsel’s letter does not constitute final agency action under the APA because it has not determined any rights or obligations or produced legal consequences. In short, the letter merely expresses an advisory, non-binding opinion, without any legal effect on the status quo ante.

Briefs here.