Here:
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
Lower court materials here.
IGRA
Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation Cert Petition re: e-Poker
Here:
Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation Cert Petition
Question presented:
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) defines authorized Indian gaming as Class I, Class II, or Class III. 25 U.S.C. § 2703. Unlike Class III gaming, Class II is not subject to tribal-state gaming compacts. 25 U.S.C. § 2710. Class II gaming includes card games that “are not explicitly prohibited by the laws of the State.” 25 U.S.C. § 2703(7)(A)(ii)(II). Wisconsin’s Constitution prohibits the state legislature from authorizing any form of gambling, including poker. See Wis. Const., art. IV, § 24(1).
Prior to Congress enacting IGRA, the Court held that a state cannot enforce its gambling laws on Indian land when its policy toward gambling is civil and regulatory, rather than criminal and prohibitory. California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians,480 U.S. 202, 210 (1987). Here, the Seventh Circuit applied Cabazon to interpret IGRA. It concluded that the electronic poker offered by the Ho-Chunk Nation is Class II, not Class III, when Wisconsin’s policy toward gambling and poker is regulatory, rather than prohibitory. Under this approach, the Nation can offer e-poker in Madison, Wisconsin despite the parties’ compact, which does not authorize Class III gaming in Madison.The question presented is:
Whether Cabazon’s “regulatory/prohibitory” test that pre-dates IGRA applies to determine whether a game is Class II or Class III gaming under IGRA?
Lower court materials here.
Latest District Court Memorandum and Order in Duluth v. Fond Du Lac
Given the significant weight that is to be placed on this factor, the Court finds that it tips the balance in favor of granting the Band retrospective relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Although (1) the parties voluntarily agreed to the Consent Decree, (2) the NIGC initially endorsed the Agreements, and (3) the NIGC may lack authority to punish the Band for its compliance with the Consent Decree, those factors are outweighed by (4) the strong congressional intent that tribes be the primary beneficiaries of gaming revenues, (5) the fact that the Band’s obligation to pay rent under the Agreements is now considered—by the agency tasked with making such determinations—to violate that intent, and (6) the fact that the City was aware of the NIGC’s changing viewpoint on the subject matter. Accordingly, the Band is relieved from its obligation to pay to the City the rent withheld in 2009, 2010, and 2011.
Previous coverage here.
Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Idaho in Texas Hold ‘Em Dispute with Coeur d’Alene Tribe
Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico Good Faith Negotiations Complaint
Here:
An excerpt:
The Pueblo and the State previously negotiated a Class III gaming compact that expired on June 30, 2015. The Pueblo formally requested that the State enter into a compact regarding the Pueblo’s Class III gaming activities on its Indian lands beyond the expiration of the current compact. More than 180 days have expired since the Pueblo made its initial request. Accordingly, the Pueblo now seeks a determination by this Court that the State has failed to conclude negotiations in good faith. With that determination, the Court has jurisdiction to invoke IGRA’s remedies that will result in a negotiated compact, or submission of last best offers to a mediator (“baseball arbitration”), and/or procedures promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior to govern the Pueblo’s Class III gaming activities.
Hobia Cert Opposition Brief
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission v. State of California
Materials and Briefs in Challenge to Enterprise Rancheria Casino
Here are the materials in the matter captioned by the court Citizens for a Better Way v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.):
98-1 UAIC Motion for Summary J
99-1 Citizens for a Better Way Motion for Summary J
102-1 Colusa Motion for Summary J
119-1 Enterprise Rancheria Motion for Summary J
120-1 Enterprise Rancheria Motion to Strike Guerrero Dec
121-1 Enterprise Rancheria Motion to Strike Meister Dec
126 UAIC Opposition to Summary J Motion
127 UAIC Opposition to Motion to Strike
128 Citizens for a Better Way Opposition to Summary J Motion
130 Colusa Opposition to Summary J Motion
131 Colusa Opposition to Motion to Strike
135 US Reply re Motion to Strike
136 Enterprise Rancheria Reply re Summary J Motion
137 Enterprise Rancheria Reply re Motion to Strike Guerrero
138 Enterprise Rancheria Reply re Motion to Strike Meister
158 DCT Order Granting Motions to Strike
Materials in the TRO stage of this litigation are here.
Tenth Circuit Briefs in New Mexico v. Dept. of Interior (Challenge to Part 291 Regs re: Pojoaque Pueblo)
Here are the briefs:
Lower court materials here.
Update in Cayuga Nation v. Tanner
Here are more materials in the case captioned Cayuga Nation v. Tanner (N.D. N.Y.):
38 DCT Order Denying Unity Council Motion to Intervene
41 Plaintiffs Reply in Support of PI
42 Plaintiffs Response to Tanner Motion to Dismiss
50 DCT Order Dismissing Claims
52-1 Motion for Reconsideration
Apparently, the Halftown faction (the plaintiffs here) is continuing the fight for gaming, while the Unity Council group has been dismissed from the case. We posted materials on this case here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.