Here are the materials in Club One Casino Inc. v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.):
IGRA
Federal Court Issues Split Decision in Flandrea Santee Sioux — South Dakota Tax Dispute
Here are the materials in Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Gerlach (D. S.D.):
117 Flandreau Motion for Summary J
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
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.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in NEPA Challenge to Enterprise Rancheria Casino
Here are the briefs in Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. Zinke:
Lower court materials here.
Nooksack Reaches Settlement with National Indian Gaming Commission
Here:
Picayune Rancheria Challenge to North Fork Rancheria Gaming Fails
Here are the materials in Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.):
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Frank’s Landing Indian Community v. National Indian Gaming Commission
Town of Aquinnah v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) Cert Petition
Here:
Town of Aquinnah’s Cert Petition
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Cert Petition
Question presented:
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:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.