IGRA – Page 51 – Turtle Talk

Issue: (1) Whether a non-custodial parent can invoke the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-63, to block an adoption voluntarily and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent under state law; and (2) whether ICWA defines “parent” in 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9) to include an unwed biological father who has not complied with state law rules to attain legal status as a parent.

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community

Issue: (1) Whether a federal court has jurisdiction to enjoin activity that violates the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., but takes place outside of Indian lands; and (2) whether tribal sovereign immunity bars a state from suing in federal court to enjoin a tribe from violating IGRA outside of Indian lands.

Second Update in Michigan’s Suit against Proposed Sault Tribe Lansing Casino

December 28, 2012December 28, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the new materials in State of Michigan v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (W.D. Mich.):

Michigan Reply in Support of Motion for PI

Michigan Response to SSM Motion to Dismiss

Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians filings:

2012-12-21 Amicus Brief with Exs.

2012-12-21 Memorandum in supportof Motion to file an amicus brief

2012-12-21 Motion to file an amicus brief

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe filings:

motionforleavetofile&brief

sagchipamicus

exhibitssagchip

Previous materials are here (complaint and motion for PI) and here (Sault Tribe’s responsive pleadings).

Complaint Challening Trust Acquisition for North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians

December 28, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in Stand Up for California v. DOI (D. D.C.):

Stand Up for California Complaint

An excerpt:

This “reservation shopping” case involves a dispute over the Secretary of the United States Department of Interior’s decision to acquire 305.49 acres (the “Casino Parcel”) in trust on behalf of the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians (the “North Fork Tribe” or the “Tribe”) under 25 U.S.C. § 465 for the purpose of enabling the Tribe to develop and operate a mega-casino funded by Las Vegas-based Station Casinos, Inc. (“Station Casinos”) almost 40 miles from the Tribe’s reservation. The Tribe already has ancestral lands in trust on which gambling can occur, and therefore the Secretary’s decision has been highly controversial and widely opposed. As is explained in detail below, the decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and was not in accordance with the federal policy strongly favoring on-reservation gambling, and the limited exception for off-reservation Indian gambling. Indeed, the Casino Parcel was strategically chosen adjacent to State Route 99 to provide easy access to nearby metropolitan areas with large numbers of potential gamblers.

Complaint Challenging Trust Acquisition for Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians

December 28, 2012December 28, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Citizens for a Better Way v. DOI (D. D.C.):

Citizens for a Better Way Complaint

From the complaint:

This dispute centers on the November 21, 2012, decision of the Department of the Interior (“DOI”), through Secretary Kenneth Salazar (“Secretary”), to acquire a 40-acre parcel of land located near rural Wheatland, California (“Yuba Site”) in trust on behalf of group of Indians alleged to be the Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California (“Enterprise”) and the underlying September 2011 determination approving off-reservation gaming on the Site. The purpose of the acquisition is to allow Enterprise to develop an off-reservation casino-resort with 1,700 slot machines and 170-room hotel in the middle of a farming community in Yuba County. The Secretary published notice of the trust decision in the Federal Register on December 3, 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 71,612-01 (Dec. 3, 2012). The Secretary did not publish notice of the underlying gaming determination, made in September 2011, in the Federal Register.