IGRA

Supreme Court Cert Petition Filed in CACGEC v. Chaudhuri

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition in Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Chaudhuri:

2015 12 14 Petition for Writ; Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County et al v Chaudhuri et al

Questions presented:

1. Whether Congress, by enacting legislation permitting an Indian tribe to purchase land on the open market and to hold it in “restricted fee,” created “Indian country,” thereby completely divesting a state of its territorial sovereignty over that land, despite the absence of any explicit statutory language reflecting congressional intent to transfer sovereignty to the tribe?

2. Whether the Indian Commerce Clause (U.S. Const., art. I, § 8) gives Congress authority to completely divest a state of the sovereignty it had
previously exercised over land for more than two centuries and transfer that sovereignty to an Indian tribe by enacting legislation permitting an Indian tribe to buy such land on the open market and to hold it in “restricted fee.” 

3. Whether the mere congressional designation of “restricted fee” status on tribally owned land pursuant to the Indian Nonintercourse Act (25 U.S.C. § 177) implies an intent to transfer governmental power over that land to the tribe?

Lower court materials here.

Materials in Seminole Tribe v. Florida

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

This is the IGRA good faith suit brought by the tribe in the Northern District of Florida:

Doc 01 Complaint 10 26 2015

Doc 009 FL Motion to Dismiss

Doc 009-1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

13 Seminole Response

D.C. Circuit Briefs in City of Duluth v. National Indian Gaming Commission

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

2015 07 06 Statement of Issues

2015 07 06 Underlying Decision in Case–Memorandum Opinion

2015 09 11 Appellant Brief

2015 11 18 Appellee Brief

2015 12 03 Fond du Lac Band Amicus for Appellee Brief

Duluth Reply

Lower court briefs:

25 Duluth Motion for Summary J

26 US Cross Motion for Summary J

27-1 Fond du Lac Proposed Amicus Brief

DCT order Denying NIGC Motion to Dismiss

Federal Motion to Dismiss

Duluth Opposition

Federal Reply

Complaint here.

 

 

Cross Deputization for Pokagon Band of Potawatomi and County Officers

Sarah M Donnelly

Link to South Bend Tribune article here.

Excerpt:

In the meantime, the deal will allow tribal police officers to enforce Indiana laws in St. Joseph County, including on the 1700 acres of Pokagon land near North Liberty and the 166 acres between Prairie Avenue, Locust Road and the St. Joseph Valley Parkway.

“With the Pokagon Band restoring the tribal village here in South Bend, we thought it was our duty to work with St. Joseph County to enhance public safety in this area,” said tribal Chairman John Warren.

Washington Tribe Appeals NIGC Decision to Federal Court

Sarah M Donnelly

Doc. 1- Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Frank’s Landing Indian Community is suing the National Indian Gaming Commission for rejecting its class II gaming regulations.  The Commission ruled in March that the Community is not a federally-recognized Tribe for the purposes of IGRA.  Frank’s Landing was recognized by Congress in 1994.

NIGC Seeking EEO Director

Sarah M Donnelly

Job announcement here.

Link to USAJOBS announcement here.

Last day to apply is Monday, November 23, 2015.

Federal Court Orders California to Negotiate Gaming Compact with North Fork Rancheria

Sarah M Donnelly1 Comment

Doc. 25 – Order on cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings

Other documents posted previously here.

Summary Judgment Order in Commonwealth v. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head

Sarah M Donnelly1 Comment

Briefs and orders on the motion for summary judgment in re Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head:

Plaintiffs’ Motion

Doc. 113 – Commonwealth’s memo in support of its motion

Doc. 117 – Town of Aquinnah’s memo in support of its motion

Doc. 121 – AGHCA’s memo in support of its motion

Doc. 133 – Wampanoag Tribe’s opposition brief

Doc. 144 – Town of Aquinnah’s reply brief

Doc. 145 – AGHCA’s reply brief

Doc. 147 – Commonwealth’s reply brief

Defendant’s Motion

Doc. 119 – Wampanoag Tribe’s memo in support of its motion

Doc. 131 – Plaintiffs’ opposition brief

Doc. 150 – Wampanoag Tribe’s reply brief

Doc. 151 – Memorandum and Order

Mass. District Court has granted summary judgment to the Commonwealth against the Wampanoag Tribe (Aquinnah) for its proposed class II gaming facility on settlement lands.  The Court ruled that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 did not repeal the Massachusetts Settlement Act of 1987 which prohibited gaming on settlement lands.

Seminole Tribe Good Faith Negotiations Complaint

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida (N.D. Fla.):

1 Complaint

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Tribe in $36.2M Compact Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here is the opinion in Pauma Band of Luiseño Indians v. State of California.

From the court’s syllabus:

Affirming the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians was entitled to rescission of the 2004 Amendment to the 1999 Tribal-State Compact governing operation of Class III, or casino-style, gaming on Pauma’s land.

The panel held that the interpretation of a Compact license pool provision in Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Cmty. v. Cal., 618 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2010), applied, such that the State of California would be deemed to have misrepresented a material fact as to how many gaming licenses were available when negotiating with Pauma to amend its Compact. The panel held that, unlike a change in judicial interpretation of a statute or law, the doctrine of retroactivity does not apply to contracts. Once there has been a final judicial interpretation of an ambiguous contract provision, that is and has always been the correct interpretation from the document’s inception.

The panel held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Pauma’s misrepresentation claim. The panel held that the district court awarded the proper remedy to Pauma by refunding $36.2 million in overpayments, even though the district court mislabeled the remedy as specific performance, rather than rescission and restitution for a voidable contract. The panel held that this equitable remedy fell within the State’s limited waiver of its sovereign immunity in the Compacts, and thus was not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

On cross-appeal, the panel held that Pauma was not entitled to seek redress under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act because the State and Pauma actually reached a gaming Compact.

Dissenting, Chief District Judge Jarvey wrote that the State did not commit the tort of misrepresentation by interpreting the Compact differently than a later court decision. He also wrote that, under the language of the Compact, the State did not waive its sovereign immunity with respect to this claim.

Briefs here.