Here is the complaint in Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States (D.D.C.):
Indian gaming
New Scholarship Shows Tribes with Gaming Operations are 30% More Likely to Disenroll Members
Anna Malinovskaya has posted “Understanding the Native American Tribal ‘Disenrollment Epidemic’: An IV Approach” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
Recently, over 80 Native American tribes have banned or disenrolled members of their tribes or denied citizenship to eligible individuals. This phenomenon has received media attention nationwide, and even the term the “disenrollment epidemic” was coined. Many speculate that at least some of it is driven by political struggles over multi-million dollar revenues of tribal casinos, which are sometimes distributed in per capita payments to all tribal members. In this paper, we test whether gaming has been driving disenrollments, and since a tribe’s involvement in gaming might be endogenous, we employ an instrumental variable approach. In particular, we use machine learning to select an optimal subset of instruments for a Native American tribe operating a casino from the set of potential instruments all plausibly meeting the exclusion restriction and associated with the geographical characteristics of reservations, such as their proximity to an MSA, an interstate highway, or a border of a neighboring state with no brick and mortar casinos. We find that a tribe’s involvement in gaming leads to a large and statistically significant increase in the probability of the tribe experiencing a disenrollment episode.
An excerpt:
This paper sought to understand if tribes’ involvement in the gaming industry, particularly wealth from per capita distribution of gaming revenues made possible by this involvement, has been the primary factor driving disenrollments and other types of dismemberment episodes. Both gaming and per capita distributions of gaming revenues are likely to be endogenous. Although we did not find an instrument for per capita distributions, we identified a set of instruments for gaming, and used them to understand, albeit indirectly, whether gaming has been driving disenrollments (the direct approach would be instrumenting for per capita distributions rather than gaming). Although this approach has its limitations
(as discussed in the Empirical Strategy section, it represents, to the best of our knowledge, the first attempt to identify a causal link between gaming and dismemberment in Indian tribes. Additionally, the consistency of results across our OLS and IV estimates, as well as across several sub-samples, is encouraging.
This research could be strengthened by instrumenting for per capita distribution of gaming revenues directly, though finding an appropriate instrument might be challenging. It could also be strengthened by finding instruments that would pass the Weak Instruments test for the full sample (327 tribes) that is likely to produce less biased IV estimates, or by using a different quasi-experimental empirical approach that would overcome the limitations associated with IVs when the sample is relatively small.
Federal Court Rejects Seneca Effort to Vacate Judgment on Gaming Payments to State
Here are the new materials in Seneca Nation v. State of New York (W.D. N.Y.):
California Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Secretarial Procedures for Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria
Here are the materials in Cal-PAC Rancho Cordova LLP v. Dept. of the Interior (E.D. Cal.):
Bill Wood on the Potential History of Indian Gaming
William Wood has published “The (Potential) Legal History of Indian Gaming” in the Arizona Law Review. PDF
Here is the abstract:
Indian gaming—casinos owned, operated, and regulated by Indian tribes—has been a transformative force for many Indigenous nations over the past few decades. The conventional narrative is that Indian gaming began when the Seminole Tribe of Florida opened a bingo hall in 1979, other tribes began operating bingo, litigation ensued across the continent, and the U.S. Supreme Court recognized tribes’ rights to operate casinos on their reservations in 1987, in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians. Congress then passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, ushering in the modern Indian gaming era.
This Article provides a heretofore-untold account of the early Indian gaming jurisprudence and related developments. Judges in the earliest Indian gaming cases, which have gone unnoticed, ruled against tribes. Then a series of cases involving the applicability of state law to mobile homes and cigarette and fireworks sales on Indian reservations produced a test under which states could exercise jurisdiction on reservations over activities they prohibit off-reservation but lack jurisdiction over activities they do not prohibit but only regulate. The Supreme Court used this test in Cabazon to hold that state laws did not apply to tribes’ bingo halls and cardrooms.
This Article details the development of the legal doctrine around Indian gaming and how the people involved—legal services attorneys working with legal scholars at the behest and on behalf of Indigenous peoples asserting their sovereignty against state pushback—changed the course of the jurisprudence, providing the framework that yielded the result in Cabazon and Indian gaming as it exists today.
Highly entertaining and recommended.

New Mexico COA Issues Tribal Immunity Opinion
Here is the opinion in Sipp v. Buffalo Thunder Inc.:
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas Background Materials
Merits Stage
Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas Amicus Brief

Cert Stage
Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo’s Cert Petition
Reply of petitioners Ysleta del Sur Pueblo
Brief amicus curiae of United States in favor of SCOTUS review
Fifth Circuit
Texas v Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 5th Circuit Opinion
Alabama-Coushatta Tribe Amicus Brief
District Court
54 tribe supplemental memo re cause of action
83 Tribe Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint
97 Texas Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims
121 First Amended Counterclaims
146 Texas Motion for Summary Judgment
147 Texas AG Motion for Summary Judgment
153 Tribe Response to Texas AG
Tanner v. Cayuga Nation Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
1. In view of Sherrill, whether New York tribes exercise “concurrent” jurisdiction over fee lands within the plenary taxing and regulatory authority of the state and local governments, thereby enabling those tribes to engage in gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), and cause the same or greater disruptions of settled expectations condemned by this Court in Sherrill.
2. Whether fee lands under plenary state and local taxation and regulation (per Sherrill) constitute “Indian lands” under IGRA because those lands are located within the Cayugas’ historic reservation.
3. Whether the Cayuga Nation’s ancient reservation was disestablished.
Lower court materials here.
Oklahoma Federal Court Dismisses Nonmember Company’s Objection to Tribal Court Jurisdiction
Here are the materials in Monster Tech. Group v. Eller (W.D. Okla.):
1-3 Iowa Tribal Court Injunction
5 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint without Prejudice
Seminole Gaming Compact Set Aside
Here are the orders (they are the same) in West Flagler Associates Ltd. v. Haaland (D.D.C.):
And in Monterra MF v. Haaland (D.D.C.):
Briefs in both cases here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.