IGRA – Page 31 – Turtle Talk

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.

Lower court materials here (panel, en banc).

Kevin Washburn on Recurring Issues in Indian Gaming Compact Approval

March 21, 2016March 21, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

March 18, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in County of Amador v. Jewell (D.D.C.):

76-1 Amador County Motion for Summary J

77 US Response

81 Amador County Reply

83 US Reply

84 DCT Order

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.