Here are the briefs in County of Amador v. Dept. of Interior:
Other briefs TK
Here are the briefs in No Casino in Plymouth v. Jewell:
Lower court materials for both cases here.
IGRA
D.C. Circuit Oral Argument Audio in City of Duluth v. NIGC
Gabe Galanda on NIGC Per Capita “Deregulation” and Disenrollment
Gabe Galanda has published, “The Reluctant Watchdog – How National Indian Gaming Commission Inaction Helps Tribes Disenroll Members for Profit and Jeopardizes Indian Gaming as We Know It,” in Gaming Law Review & Economics. An excerpt:
Disenrollment tied to gaming per capita payments is now epidemic. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took occasion to remark that the corresponding proliferation of disenrollment controversy results from ‘‘the advent of Indian gaming, the revenues from which are distributed among tribal members.’’ Yet in the face of very public gaming per capita abuses, the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or ‘‘Commission’’) has for the last several years refused to enforce IGRA to deter or remedy those abuses.
The result of the NIGC’s de facto deregulation of the misuse of gaming per capita payments is the belief among some tribal leaders, aided by tribal lawyers, that they are free to convert tribal citizenships into profit and political gain. The NIGC’s failure to intervene despite both its statutory mandate to eradicate corrupting influences from the Indian gaming space, and its trust fiduciary responsibility to serve and protect all American Indians is woeful, and threatens the tribal gaming industry at large.
Citizen Potawatomi Prevails in Dispute over Alcohol Sales and Taxes at Gaming Facility
Here is the AAA award in Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. State of Oklahoma:
an excerpt:
In 2014, the OTC sent an audit demand to the Nation questioning more than $27,000,000 of exemptions claimed on the Nation’s past sales tax reports. The Nation did not respond and declined to submit further sales tax reports. The OTC then filed and prosecuted an administrative complaint seeking to revoke all of the Nation’s alcoholic beverage permits relying on State law providing for revocation of any alcoholic beverage permit upon noncompliance with State tax laws. In its complaint, the OTC asserted for the first time that State sales taxes apply to all sales by an Indian Tribe to nontribal members.
Interesting negotiating strategy.
Commentary:
Justice Daniel J. Boudreau issued the attached arbitration award in Citizen Band Potawatomi Nation v. State of Oklahoma, No. 01-15-0003-3452 (AAA, April 4, 2016). The Award includes (i) a declaratory judgment that federal law protecting tribal sovereignty interests preempt and invalidate the State’s sales taxes on the Nation’s sales in question; and (ii) issues an injunction against the State from taking any further actions to divest the Nation’s Compact gaming facilities of the right to sell and serve alcoholic beverages or threaten enforcement actions against them on the ground that the Nation does not comply with the State’s sales tax laws. Justice Boudreau was the single arbitrator in this dispute.
The declaratory judgement applied the balancing test analysis in White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) and other federal Indian law cases. Judge Boudreau held that the evidence established (i) significant federal and tribal interests in the Nation’s self-governance, economic self-sufficiency, and self-determination; (ii) the Nation alone invests value in the goods and services that it sells, does not derive value through an exemption from State sales taxes and imposed its own equivalent tribal tax on the sales; (iii) the State possesses no economic interest beyond a general quest for revenue in imposing a sales tax on the Nation’s transactions and suffers no uncompensated economic burden arising therefrom; and (iv) the federal and tribal interests at stake predominate significantly over any possible State interests in the transactions upon which the State seeks to impose its sales tax.
Update in TON Suit against Arizona Officials re: Glendale Casino
Here are the new materials in Tohono O’Odham Nation v. Ducey (D. Ariz.):
82 DCT Order Denying TON Motion for PI
108 TON Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims
Previous materials are here.
Tohono O’Odham Prevails in Gaming Compact Dispute before Ninth Circuit
Here is the opinion in State of Arizona v. Tohono O’Odham Nation.
Briefs and other materials here.
Tribal NLRB Background Materials
Here are the materials relevant to Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Government v. NLRB.
Supreme Court cert stage briefs
Little River Petition and Appendix COMBINED
Final CO-UMUT Amicus Cert Petition – Saginaw Chippewa and LRB
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
Sixth Circuit En Banc Stage Continue reading
California v. Pauma Band Cert Petition
Here is the petition in California v. Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation:
Question presented:
In Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), this Court held that a waiver of state sovereign immunity must be “stated ‘by the most express language or by such overwhelming implication from the text as will leave no room for any other reasonable construction.’” Id. at 673 (alteration omitted). This case concerns a gaming compact between the State of California and the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation. Both parties waived their sovereign immunity from suits arising under the compact, but only to the extent that “[n]either side makes any claim for monetary damages (that is, only injunctive, specific performance, including enforcement of a provision of this Compact requiring payment of money to one or another of the parties, or declaratory relief is sought) . . . .” App. 28a. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit held that this limited waiver, which also appears in gaming compacts between California and 57 other tribes, waived the State’s immunity with respect to an award of $36.2 million in restitution.
The question presented is: Whether, under Edelman, the language of the limited waiver—which expressly excludes claims for “monetary damages” and references only injunctive relief, specific performance, and declaratory relief— waived the State’s sovereign immunity with respect to the district court’s monetary award.
Kevin Washburn on Recurring Issues in Indian Gaming Compact Approval
Kevin Washburn has posted “Recurring Issues in Indian Gaming Compact Approval” on SSRN. The paper is forthcoming in Gaming Law and Economics.
The abstract:
As tribal-state gaming compact negotiations under IGRA have become more complex and ratification in state and tribal legislative bodies has become more political, state and tribal negotiators sometimes lose sight of important interests protected by IGRA through the Secretary of the Interior’s review authority. IGRA is fairly clear about the terms parties may and may not negotiate in compacts and Interior has begun to enforce IGRA more and more rigorously in the review process. To minimize the risk of disapproval, state and tribal negotiators are wise to consider several issues that are likely to raise concerns among federal reviewers. This essay surveys some of the more common issues that continue to arise in compact negotiations.
On another, unrelated note, Professor Washburn’s photography skills were in fine form this last weekend.
Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Interior Approval of Buena Vista Rancheria of the Me-Wuk Tribe Gaming Compact
Here are the materials in County of Amador v. Jewell (D.D.C.):
76-1 Amador County Motion for Summary J
An excerpt:
At the center of this dispute is a proposed gaming operation on the Buena Vista Rancheria of the Me-Wuk Tribe located in Amador County, California. In 2000, pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721, the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (the “Secretary”), approved a gaming compact between the MeWuk Tribe and the State of California. The gaming compact was later amended in 2004 to provide for an expanded gaming operation. Although it had not challenged the 2000 gaming compact, Plaintiff, Amador County, challenges the Secretary’s approval of the amended compact, claiming that the Buena Vista Rancheria does not qualify as “Indian land”—a requirement under the IGRA.
***
Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the record of the case, and the relevant legal authority, the Court concludes that: (1) Amador County stipulated that it would treat the Buena Vista Rancheria as a reservation; (2) Amador County is barred from arguing in this litigation that the Rancheria is not a reservation; and, alternatively, (3) the Secretary is authorized to declare that the Rancheria is a reservation for purposes of the IGRA. Therefore, the Court will DENY Amador County’s motion for summary judgment and GRANT the Secretary’s cross-motion. The reasoning for the Court’s decision is set forth below.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.