Sen. Feinstein Introduces Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act

Congressional Record link here. Bill text not yet available.

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:

S. 477. A bill to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to modify a provision relating to gaming on land acquired after October 17, 1988; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act.

This bill sets forth what I believe is a very reasonable, moderate standard for where tribes are allowed to open gaming establishments.

The standard is simple: a tribe must demonstrate that it has a modern and an aboriginal connection to the land before it can open a gaming establishment on it. Continue reading

Federal Court Enjoins Sault Tribe from Seeking Trust Acquisition for Lansing Casino Property

News coverage here.

Link to opinion here.

DCT Order Granting Injunction

Briefs here.

City of Duluth Sues National Indian Gaming Commission over Fond du Lac Casino Revenues

Here is the complaint in City of Duluth v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. D.C.):

City of Duluth Complaint

News coverage here.

Release: Mashpee Tribe’s Land Qualifies as Initial Reservation

Interior Letter:

Washburn to Cromwell 2.7.13

Release:

Interior Department Says Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe’s

Land will Qualify as an Initial Reservation

Land application demonstrates significant historic ties to Taunton area

 

MASHPEE, MA – The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe has received a positive preliminary advisory opinion from the Department of the Interior indicating that the Tribe’s lands in Taunton and Mashpee qualify as an initial reservation once the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe’s land into trust process is completed with a positive Record of Decision. This special status means that the Tribe will be able to conduct Class II and Class III gaming on the land under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Chairman Cedric Cromwell said this news “is another huge step forward toward the development of a first class destination resort casino in Taunton. We look forward to creating thousands of jobs and widespread economic opportunities for our Tribe, the people of Taunton and the entire Southeastern Massachusetts region.”

The news was presented to Chairman Cromwell in a letter from Assistant Secretary of the Department of the Interior for Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn. He informed the tribe that an analysis completed by the Office of Indian Gaming finds that the Tribe’s land in trust application qualifies to be processed under the initial reservation exception.

The initial reservation exception is found in Section 20 of the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act. It is one of the few exceptions to the prohibition of gaming on lands taken into trust after October 17, 1988. The provision is expressly intended for newly recognized Indian tribes, such as the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, that do not have an established reservation. The determination is based, in part, on an analysis of the tribe’s historic ties to the area identified in the land in trust application that is currently under review by the federal government.

Chairman Cromwell praised the speedy review process. “On behalf of our tribe, I want to express my deepest gratitude to President Obama, Secretary Washburn, the Interior Department, and the many dedicated officials at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. They truly understand how important it is for our people to have land, to maintain our history, our language and our culture. This will enable us to fully operate as a sovereign Tribal government, to secure the resources necessary to support ourselves, and to provide services such as housing, health care and education to our people.”

In addition, Chairman Cromwell thanked those who have worked on the documentation of the Tribe’s historic ties. “Tribal members and our advisers worked tirelessly to document our historic ties to Mashpee, Taunton, and all our ancestral homeland encompassing present-day Southeastern Massachusetts and Eastern Rhode Island. Their efforts were conducted with professionalism, seriousness, and respect for our rich history.”

The Tribe’s application for land in trust includes land in Mashpee and Taunton, Massachusetts. The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe has proposed a destination resort casino in Taunton. The planning and design process for the proposed casino has moved at a very brisk pace. The Tribe has successfully acquired an option for land, negotiated an intergovernmental agreement with the City, won the support of the residents of Taunton in a referendum, and has progressed with state and federal environmental reviews.

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, with approximately 2,600 enrolled members, has called present-day southeastern Massachusetts home for over 12,000 years. The Tribe was acknowledged in 2007 as a federally recognized tribe. As a sovereign nation, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe works to provide housing, health care, education, cultural, and economic development services to its members throughout the region.

Two New Papers by Alex Skibine on IGRA and Indian Country Hot Pursuit

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act at 25: Successes, Shortcomings, and Dilemmas
Alexander Tallchief Skibine
University of Utah – S.J. Quinney College of Law
Date Posted: January 14, 2013
Working Paper Series

Hot Pursuit into Indian Country: What Are the Limits?
Alexander Tallchief Skibine
University of Utah – S.J. Quinney College of Law
Date Posted: January 14, 2013
Working Paper Series

Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians Secretarial Procedures Materials

Here is Interior’s Decision letter:

Mazzetti 8 Feb 2013

Rincon’s press release:

Rincon Secretarial PR28

And the procedures:

Sec Proc Rincon 2 8 13

From the press release:

For the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, it took seven years of litigation, negotiations, and an unorthodox route of approval to get their 1999 tribal-state gaming compact renegotiated. Setting a legal and political precedent as the first California agreement negotiated through the federal courts, the Rincon secretarial procedures were approved by Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, February 8, 2013.

Michigan Files Amicus Brief in State of Oklahoma v. Hobia

Here:

State of Michigan Amicus Brief

The other opening briefs are here.

Opening Briefs in Broken Arrow Casino Appeal — UPDATED with Complete Briefing (3/4/13)

Here are the Tenth Circuit briefs so far in State of Oklahoma v. Hobia:

Kialegee Tribal Town Brief

Brief Amicus Curiae State of NM (filed 1-25-13) (W1843673)

State of Michigan Amicus Brief

Filed Brief of the Appellee (1-25-13) (W1843503)

Kialegee Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

LSJ Article about Lansing Casino Lawsuit

Here.

GRAND RAPIDS — A federal judge Wednesday said he could decide within 30 days whether to allow Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette to halt a proposed Lansing casino.

U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker announced the timeline after attorneys from the state and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians argued in a Grand Rapids courtroom about whether Schuette’s six-count lawsuit, filed in September, should be dismissed.

Earlier coverage here.

Eighth Circuit Decides City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Ojibwe Indians Gaming Revenue Sharing Appeal

Here are the materials in City of Duluth v. Fond Du Lac Band of Chippewa:

CA8 Opinion

Fond du Lac Brief

City of Duluth Brief

Fond du Lac Band Reply

City of Duluth Reply

From the court’s summary:

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. A binding adjudication by a federal agency, which has been tasked with interpreting and enforcing a statute enacted by Congress, represents a change in the law for the purposes of Rule 60(b); here, the National Indian Gaming Commission’s decision that the agreement between the parties concerning the operation of a casino was in violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act made illegal what the earlier consent decree between the parties was designed to enforce, and the district court did not err in deciding to grant prospective relief from continued enforcement of the 1994 consent decree by dissolving the decree as it related to the years 2011-2036; the district court erred in concluding that it could not grant retrospective relief under Rule 60(b)(6) and its ruling denying retrospective relief on rent payments from 2009 to 2011 is reversed, and the question remanded for further consideration.

Lower court materials here.