Federal Court Rejects Texas’ Effort to Stop Alabama-Coushatta Bingo

Here are the materials in State of Texas v. Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (E.D. Tex.):

160 Texas Motion for Contempt

161 Tribe Response

162 Reply

163 Surreply

193 Magistrate Order

Prior post here.

Eighth Circuit Decides City of Council Bluffs v. Dept. of the Interior [Ponca Gaming]

Here is the opinion.

An excerpt:

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]

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

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

73 SUFC MSJ

77-1 Interior MSJ

79 Tribe MSJ

80 SUFC Opposition

81 Interior Reply

81 Tribe Reply

89 DCT Order

Prior posts here and here.

Federal Court Enjoins Pinoleville Pomo Nation Tribal Court Designed to Challenge Federal Court RICO Judgment

Here is the order in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James (N.D. Cal.):

363 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Shortly after judgment was entered in this case, PPN constituted its Tribal Court for the first time; there is no evidence that it ever existed in any meaningful way until then. Days after the newly appointed judge issued standing orders, PPN filed a civil complaint in that Tribal Court that seeks to (1) declare the judgment issued in this case invalid, (2) limit and control—indeed, vitiate—the scope of enforcement of that judgment, and (3) impose roughly eleven million dollars in liability on JW Gaming for alleged fraud stemming from the same loan agreement here. The lawsuit names not only JW Gaming but its attorneys in this matter and the bank at which PPN maintains accounts that was recently subpoenaed in the course of enforcement of the judgment. It is the first (and, as far as the record shows, only) case brought in the Tribal Court. Remarkably, up until the eve of the hearing on a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against the proceeding, which I ultimately denied, JW Gaming could not find publicly available information about how appear in that proceeding (despite being served with a summons), who the judge was, or what the rules were.

JW Gaming moved for an order to show cause why an injunction should not issue, which I denied. It then moved for the TRO, which I converted into a motion for a preliminary injunction once PPN’s counsel committed to placing the Tribal Court proceeding on hold. That motion is now ripe for decision.

It is critical that federal courts respect tribal sovereignty and tribal court jurisdiction. Tribes are sovereign nations. Their ability to govern themselves and enjoy the full benefits of sovereignty is unquestioned. Tribal courts, as arms of the tribe, are entitled to substantial comity and deference under established federal law. I previously denied JW Gaming’s motion for an order to show cause why an injunction should not issue out of these concerns. I remain vigilant about the compelling interest that PPN has in maintaining its sovereignty.

Those concerns, however, do not prevent an injunction against a Tribal Court proceeding that seeks to invalidate or interfere with the judgment entered in this Court. There are compelling interests in ensuring that enforcement of valid federal-court judgments is not interfered with, that JW Gaming is not required to litigate a lawsuit precision-engineered to invalidate and interfere with this one, and that third parties are not exposed to court orders or liability for simply enforcing a judgment or attempting to comply with the procedures for enforcing it. To the extent the lawsuit seeks to invalidate the judgment or interfere with enforcement, it is unquestionably meritless: a tribal court lacks authority to invalidate a federal court’s judgments or to dictate the scope of executing that those judgments. JW Gaming has shown it is entitled to a preliminary injunction to the extent that the Tribal Court proceedings attempts to invalidate, interfere with, or thwart the judgment entered here. I possess jurisdiction to enter this injunction to protect and effectuate the judgment. The doctrine of tribal court exhaustion does not apply because PPN exercised its sovereign power to clearly, expressly, and unequivocally waive it.

Briefs and related materials here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Club One Casino v. Haaland

Here is today’s order list.

Here are the cert stage briefs in Club One.