Here is the petition in Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington:
IGRA
Federal Court Dismisses Employment Suit against San Manuel
Here are the materials in Harris v. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (C.D. Cal.):
Seventh Circuit Ruling Favors Ho-Chunk Nation in Dispute over Poker
Here is the opinion in State of Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation:
An excerpt:
The State of Wisconsin sued the HoChunk Nation of Wisconsin to stop the tribe from offering electronic poker at its Madison gaming facility. The state maintained that the tribe was violating its agreement with the state to refrain from conducting Class III gaming at that location. The tribe responded that its poker is a Class II game that is permitted by law. The state prevailed in the district court, and the Ho-Chunk Nation now appeals. We reverse.
Briefs are here.
Lower court materials here.
Update in Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri
Here are the new materials in Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri (E.D. Cal.):
60-1 Jamul Action Committee Motion for PI
62 Tribal Opposition to Motion for PI
63 NIGC Opposition to Motion for PI
67 Jamul Action Committee Reply
75-1 Rosales & Toggery Motion to File Amicus
75-2 Rosales & Toggery Amicus Brief
Decision in Tulalip Tribes v. Washington
Opinion here.
Previous coverage here.
Our conclusion is consonant with our instruction in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes that courts should hold compacting parties to the ordinary meaning of terms in their agreements. Id. at 1098–100. The plain language of the Spokane Compact shows that the Inter-Tribal Fund mechanism available to the Spokane Tribe carries with it interdependent conditions and consequences. Tulalip’s amendment would not match those terms. We take no view on whether the terms of Appendix Spokane are in fact more favorable than those included in the Tulalip Compact. We hold simply that Tulalip is not entitled as a matter of law to the more selective set of terms in its proposed amendment.2 The most-favored tribe clause does not allow a “pick and choose” arrangement. The district court correctly entered judgment for the State. Simply put, Tulalip’s proposal does not mirror the restrictions of Appendix Spokane, and those are the terms to which the State agreed.
NIGC Prevails in Dispute with City of Duluth over the Fond du Luth Casino
The D.C. District Court granted the NIGC’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the City’s APA challenge to the Fond-du-Luth NOV. Here is the order in City of Duluth v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. D.C.):
APA case — District Court Op. (March 31 2015)
An excerpt:
Plaintiff City of Duluth, Minnesota, brings this action challenging a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) that the National Indian Gaming Commission (the “Commission”) issued to the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (the “Band”) with respect to Band’s gaming establishment in the City of Duluth. This action is the latest step in a long saga pertaining to the relationship of the Band and the City of Duluth with respect to gaming, including proceedings in federal court in Minnesota, before the National Indian Gaming Commission, and, now, before this Court as well. In a nutshell, in the NOV, issued July 12, 2011, the National Indian Gaming Commission informed the Band that the 1994 Agreement between the Band and the City of Duluth violated the requirement that the Band have the “sole proprietary interest” in the gaming activity pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. The City of Duluth filed this action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, claiming that the NOV, first, was arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law, and, second, exceeded Defendants’ authority under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The City of Duluth requests that the NOV be set aside and requests related declaratory and injunctive relief. The Federal Defendants—the Commission and Jonodev Chaudhuri, in his official capacity as Acting Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission—argue that the NOV neither was arbitrary or capricious nor exceeded the scope of the Commission’s authority. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s [24] Motion for Summary Judgment and the Federal Defendants’ [26] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s [24] Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS the Federal Defendants’ [26] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court concludes that the NOV was not arbitrary or capricious; that it did not exceed the scope of the Commission’s authority; and that none of the other legal infirmities that Plaintiff identifies are grounds for setting aside the NOV. Accordingly, this case is dismissed in its entirety.
Briefs are here.
Oklahoma v. Hobia Cert Petition
Here:
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (as filed)
Question presented:
Does Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S.Ct. 2024 (2014), require the dismissal of a State’s suit to prevent tribal officers from conducting gaming that would be unlawful under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and a state-tribal compact when
• the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief has been brought against tribal officials – not the tribe;• the gaming will occur in Indian country, on the land of another tribe; and
• the state-tribal compact’s arbitration provision does not require arbitration before filing suit?
Lower court materials here.
North Fork Rancheria Sues California Alleging Violation of IGRA Good Faith Negotiation Obligation
Here is the complaint in North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California v. State of California (E.D. Cal.):
An excerpt:
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) requires states, upon request by an Indian tribe, to “negotiate with the Indian tribe in good faith to enter into” “a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of gaming activities” on the tribe’s “Indian lands.” 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(A). IGRA also confers jurisdiction on this Court over “any cause of action initiated by an Indian tribe arising from the failure of a State to enter into negotiations with the Indian tribe for the purpose of entering into a Tribal-State compact under paragraph (3) or to conduct such negotiations in good faith.” Id. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(i). This action is brought pursuant to § 2710(d)(7)(A)(i) and seeks a declaration that Defendant the State of California (“the State” or “California”) has failed to comply with § 2710(d)(3)(A)’s requirement that the State negotiate in good faith with Plaintiff North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California (“the Tribe”) to enter into an enforceable tribal-state gaming compact, and an order directing the State to conclude an enforceable compact with the Tribe within 60 days or submit to mediation, see id. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)-(iv).
Sault Tribe Motion to Dismiss Michigan Gaming Suit
Here are the new materials in the case captioned State of Michigan v. Payment (W.D. Mich.):
2015-03-20 Brief in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
2015-03-20 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
71 Michigan Response to Motion to Dismiss
The state’s amended complaint is here.
Kansas Sues NIGC over Quapaw Indian Lands Opinion
Here is the complaint in State of Kansas v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. Kan.):
An excerpt:
In this action, the Plaintiffs challenge and seek relief from the November 21, 2014 determination of National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) officials that a 124 acre strip of land in Kansas acquired by the Quapaw Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma (Quapaw or the Tribe) and put into trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for non-gaming purposes qualifies for gaming under the “last recognized reservation exception” to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s (IGRA) general prohibition on gaming on land acquired after October 17, 1988. See 25 U.S.C. § 2719(a)(2)(B); 25 C.F.R. § 292.4(b)(2).
Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the November 21, 2014 determination because the strip of land was taken into trust by the Department of Interior for non-gaming purposes and because the NIGC incorrectly applied 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(2)(B), thereby depriving the State of Kansas of the governor’s statutory right to concur in and to veto gaming on lands acquired after October 17, 1988, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(A)
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.