IGRA – Page 9 – Turtle Talk

In 2017, the National Indian Gaming Commission determined that a parcel of land in Iowa that is held in trust by the United States for the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska is eligible for gaming. The Commission reasoned that the land is eligible as part of “the restoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to Federal recognition.” 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii). The appellants here, the States of Iowa and Nebraska and the City of Council Bluffs, challenged that decision in the district court. The district court agreed with the Commission that the Ponca Restoration Act, Pub. L. No. 101-484, 104 Stat. 1167 (1990), does not preclude gaming on the parcel. But because the Commission failed to consider a relevant factor in evaluating whether the parcel is restored land for the Tribe, the court remanded the matter for further consideration. The appellants noticed an appeal, arguing that the court erred in its interpretation of the Ponca Restoration Act. We affirm the district court’s order.

Briefs here.

Lower court materials here.

Clay v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue [Federal Taxes on Gaming Per Capita Payments]

August 23, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

The question presented is: Whether the clear language of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the exclusive authority over federally recognized Indian Tribes granted to the Secretary of Interior under 25 U.S.C. § 2, controls the determination of how the Miccosukee Tribe compensates its members for the use of their lands, to the exclusion of any other federal agency, including the Internal Revenue Service.

Lower court materials here.

Federal Suit(s) Filed against Seminole Gaming Compact [updated]

August 18, 2021November 23, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are relevant materials in West Flagler Associates Ltd. v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

1-1 Seminole Compact

1-6 Interior Letter

Updates (10/14/21, 10/19/21, 10/21/21, 11/23/21)

13 Seminole Motion

19 WF Motion for Summary J

22 WF Opposition to 13

24 Seminole Reply in Support of 13

25 Federal Motion to Dismiss

28 Florida Amicus Brief

31 WF Opposition to Motion to Transfer

41 Interior Response

43 DCT Order

Here are materials in West Flagler Associates Ltd. v. DeSantis (N.D. Fla.):

1 Complaint

18 First Amended Complaint

21 Seminole Motion to Intervene and Dismiss

22 Desantis Motion to Dismiss

26 WF Response to 20

27 WF Response to 22

33 Desantis Reply in Support of 20

34 WF Motion for Summary J

Update (10/19/2021):

Here are materials in Monterra MF v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

31 Seminole Motion to Intervene

35 Federal Motion to Dismiss

36 Federal Motion to Transfer

37-4 Monterra MSJ

53 Interior Response

Federal Court (again) Rejects Stand Up’s Claims against Interior and North Fork Rancheria

August 13, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.):

Prior posts here and here.

Second Circuit Holds IGRA Preempts N.Y. Village Bingo Ban

July 28, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Cayuga Nation v. Tanner:

20-1310_opn

Briefs here.

Minnesota Bankruptcy Court Holds Pokagon Potawatomi Gaming Per Capita Payments are Not Part of Debtor’s Estate

July 9, 2021ilpc

Here are the materials in In re Musel (D. Minn. Bkrcy.):

10 Motion to Turnover

14 Response

22 Trustee Brief

23 Debtor Brief

25 Memorandum Decision and Order

An excerpt:

The Pokagon Band followed all of the requirements outlined in IGRA – a federal statute – to achieve federal approval for its Gaming Revenue Allocation Plan. Once that RAP was approved, the Band’s sovereignty ensured that it became the sole and exclusive authority for creating and defining property rights for payments it authorized. The RAP’s plain language prevented the creation of any vested property right or interest, and any intangible right to payment was unique to the individual tribal member. As a consequence, the debtor had no property interests that would be considered property of the estate under § 541(a). Additionally, even outside of the Pokagon Band’s sovereign authority to create and define property rights, the per capita payments are not property of the estate in policy, logic, or equity.