Here are the new materials in Oxford Casino Hotel v. Champion (D. Me.):
Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in Maine Internet Gaming Case
Indian gaming
Wabanaki Nations Intervene to Defend Maine’s Internet Gaming Law
On April 1, 2026, the four Wabanaki Nations — the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, the Mi’kmaq Nation, the Passamaquoddy Tribe, and the Penobscot Nation — represented by the Native American Rights Fund and co-counsel filed an unopposed motion to intervene in Oxford Casino Hotel, et al. v. Champion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. On April 2, 2026, the district court granted the Nations’ motion. The Nations’ intervention ensures their voices are represented in a lawsuit challenging Maine’s new internet gaming law, An Act to Create Economic Opportunity for the Wabanaki Nations Through Internet Gaming, a statute that is important to unique Tribal economic and sovereign interests.
Previous post on this matter is here.
The law, enacted earlier this year, establishes a regulatory framework allowing the Wabanaki Nations to seek licenses to operate internet gaming in Maine. The statute is designed to support Tribal self-determination and create economic opportunities that strengthen the Wabanaki governments and their ability to provide for their communities. The Nations are the direct beneficiaries of the law and have significant sovereign, economic, and constitutional interests at stake in the litigation.
The lawsuit, brought by Oxford Casino Hotel and others, seeks to invalidate the law on constitutional grounds. By granting the Wabanaki Nations’ motion to intervene, the court has allowed the Nations to participate as party defendants to defend the law and protect their unique sovereign right as governments to pursue economic development in order to fund essential government programs, services and infrastructure.
Leaders of the Wabanaki Nations emphasized the importance of intervening to safeguard economic sovereignty and shared prosperity across Maine.
Chief Francis, Penobscot Nation: “Our intervention in Oxford v. Champion is about the future — for our people and for all of rural Maine. This law gives the Penobscot Nation a fair chance to build jobs, fund essential services, and partner across communities to heal long-standing economic disparities, while recognizing our unique politic status as a Tribal Nation. We look forward to the opportunity to defend this law and our right to economic self-determination.”
Chief Sabattis, Houlton Band of Maliseet: “This law is crucial to advancing the Houlton Band’s efforts to develop independent, long-term revenue sources that are not dependent on federal funding and will enable us to support and expand governmental services for Maliseet families and other community members. It is a result of collaboration between the Wabanaki Nations and state government under our unique jurisdictional relationship to create opportunities that will enable the Nations to share in the economic benefits of gaming.”
Chief McCormack, Mi’kmaq Nation: “Rural Maine and our Nations are interconnected. When Tribal economies grow, local businesses, workers, and towns grow too. The Mi’kmaq Nation is proud to stand in court with the other Wabanaki Nations to defend a law that makes that shared prosperity possible.”
Chief Bassett, Passamaquoddy Tribe (Pleasant Point): “The Wabanaki Nations face steeper barriers to prosperity than other Tribes around the country, and we have been historically blocked out of Maine’s casino gaming industry as our peers across Indian country rebuilt their economies and the economies around them using those same economic tools we were deprived of. Defending this law is defending our right to pursue self-determination. We are fighting for a brighter economic future for our future generations.”
Chief Nicholas, Passamaquoddy Tribe (Indian Township): “The Passamaquoddy Tribe has been steadfast in its support of economic sovereignty as its number one priority the past two years in the Maine legislature. We are ready to stand in court to defend a law we were proud to fight for over the past years in the state house. Maine’s new internet gaming law is intended to promote a better economic future for Wabanaki communities and for rural Maine. By protecting this law, we protect our future.”
Native American Rights Fund Staff Attorney Lenny Powell: “The Native American Rights Fund is proud to jointly represent the Wabanaki Nations in efforts to defend ‘An Act to Create Economic Opportunity for the Wabanaki Nations Through Internet Gaming.’ This attack represents an unfortunate effort to undermine Tribal-state partnerships. It seeks to undermine the legal basis for constructive government-to-government policy collaboration, despite decades of data showing that Tribal and non-Tribal communities alike are stronger when Tribal nations are empowered in their pursuit of self-determination.”
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Holl v. Avery & Native Village of Eklutna
Michigan COA Holds Tribal Outside Counsel Not Entitled to Immunity in Malpractice Action Brought by Tribal Client, Remands for Determination of Proper Forum (State or Tribal)
Here is the opinion in Kewadin Casinos Gaming v. Patterson Earnhart Real Bird & Wilson LLP:
Fourth Circuit Rejects Rule 19 Argument in Employment Suit against Eastern Band Cherokee Casino
Here is the opinion in Peterson v. Harrah’s NC Casino Company LLC.
Briefs:
Lower court materials here.
California Federal Court Dismisses Morongo Gaming Compact Challenge for Lack of Ripeness
Here are the materials in Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Newsome (C.D. Cal.):
North Carolina COA in Catawba Sovereign Immunity Matter
Here are the materials so far in Kings Mountain Land Development Partners LLC v. Catawba Indian Nation:
Guidiville Rancheria Sues to Stop $5M Arbitration Claims
Here is the complaint in Guidiville Rancheria of California v. Bluerock Real Estate Holdings LLC (N.D. Cal.):
New Student Scholarship on Rule 19, Tribal Immunity, and Indian Gaming Cases
Marissa Uri has published “Rule 19 and Tribal Representation in Indian Gaming Litigation” in the Stanford Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
Since 1988, when Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) into law, many Indian tribes have established gaming as a vital source of economic and political sovereignty. The process envisioned by IGRA, however, has allowed private actors to challenge tribal gaming operations by suing state and federal entities that negotiate the gaming operations with the tribes, rather than the tribes themselves. These third parties have succeeded in legal challenges enjoining tribal gaming without ever making the operating tribe a party to the suit.
Tribes, protected by the well-established doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity, frequently intervene in these suits under Rule 19, arguing that their inability to be joined necessitates dismissal of the case. An emerging disagreement among federal circuit courts underscores the procedural and practical difficulties that courts face in weighing these interests, particularly in assessing whether existing federal or state defendants can adequately represent absent tribal interests such that the case can proceed “in equity and good conscience.” This Note argues that consistent with the deference under Rule 19 case law accorded to other sovereigns, there should be a presumption of dismissal when tribes cannot be joined in discrete gaming challenges due to tribal sovereign immunity. In doing so, this Note examines Indian gaming challenges as a unique form of Administrative Procedure Act litigation and catalogs where federal, state, and tribal gaming interests diverge, underscoring why this divergence poses significant legal and practical threats to tribal sovereignty in a budding area of contemporary Indian law.
New Student Scholarship on Rule 19 and Indian Gaming
Melissa Uri has published “Rule 19 and Tribal Representation in Indian Gaming Litigation” in the Stanford Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
Since 1988, when Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) into law, many Indian tribes have established gaming as a vital source of economic and political sovereignty. The process envisioned by IGRA, however, has allowed private actors to challenge tribal gaming operations by suing state and federal entities that negotiate the gaming operations with the tribes, rather than the tribes themselves. These third parties have succeeded in legal challenges enjoining tribal gaming without ever making the operating tribe a party to the suit.
Tribes, protected by the well-established doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity, frequently intervene in these suits under Rule 19, arguing that their inability to be joined necessitates dismissal of the case. An emerging disagreement among federal circuit courts underscores the procedural and practical difficulties that courts face in weighing these interests, particularly in assessing whether existing federal or state defendants can adequately represent absent tribal interests such that the case can proceed “in equity and good conscience.” This Note argues that consistent with the deference under Rule 19 case law accorded to other sovereigns, there should be a presumption of dismissal when tribes cannot be joined in discrete gaming challenges due to tribal sovereign immunity. In doing so, this Note examines Indian gaming challenges as a unique form of Administrative Procedure Act litigation and catalogs where federal, state, and tribal gaming interests diverge, underscoring why this divergence poses significant legal and practical threats to tribal sovereignty in a budding area of contemporary Indian law
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.