Here. Highlights are that there has been no decision on cert. in the Culverts case and that the Wampanoag’s First Circuit gaming win will remain in place.
Indian gaming
Conn. and Tribes Sue Interior For Failure to Publish Gaming Compact Amendments
Here is the complaint in the matter of State of Connecticut et al v. Zinke et al, 17-cv-02564 (D.D.C. Nov. 29, 2017):
Doc. 1 – Civil Cover Sheet and Complaint
With the State of Connecticut, the Mohegan and Mashantucket Pequot Tribes have filed suit against the Secretary of Interior after the Department failed to treat submitted
amendments to their gaming compact as deemed approved and publish in the Federal Register notice that the amendments are deemed approved.
Federal Court Rejects Casino Opponent Demand to Supplement Administrative Record with Materials on the Legal Status of Trust Land (North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians)
Here are the materials in Club One Casino v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.):
Comanche Effort to Shut Down Chickasaw Casino Fails for Now
Here are the materials in Comanche Nation of Oklahoma v. Zinke (W.D. Okla.):
Stockbridge-Munsee/Ho-Chunk Nation/Wisconsin Gaming Compact Dispute Dismissed as Moot
Here are the materials in Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. State of Wisconsin (W.D. Wis.):
Interior Prevails in Defense of Ione Band Trust Land Acquisition in Ninth Circuit
Here is the opinion in County of Amador v. Dept. of Interior. UPDATE: And the unpublished opinion in No Casino in Plymouth v. Zinke.
An excerpt:
This case involves a dispute over a proposed casino in Amador County, California. Plaintiff, the County of Amador (“County”), challenges a 2012 record of decision (“ROD”) issued by the United States Department of the Interior (“Interior”) in which the agency announced its intention to take land into trust for the benefit of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (“Ione Band” or “Band”). The ROD also allowed the Ione Band to build a casino complex and conduct gaming on the land once it is taken into trust. Reviewing Interior’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), we conclude that the agency did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s award of summary judgment to Interior and the Ione Band.
Briefs here.
Kansas v. NIGC Cert Petition
Here:
Question presented:
Whether NIGC legal opinions that determine whether Indian lands are eligible for gaming under IGRA are reviewable final agency actions.
Lower court materials here.
Alabama Supreme Court Rejects Tribal Immunity Defense in Two of Three Cases against Poarch Band Creek
Here are the opinions:
Briefs:
We posted some briefs on the Rape case here. Additional materials here:
Briefs:
Competitor Challenge to North Fork Rancheria Casino Continues
Here are the materials in Club One Casino Inc. v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.):
Federal Court Issues Split Decision in Flandrea Santee Sioux — South Dakota Tax Dispute
Here are the materials in Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Gerlach (D. S.D.):
117 Flandreau Motion for Summary J
An excerpt:
1. The Tribe’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 115, is GRANTED to the extent that:
a. The State cannot impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services as to the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop (claim one).
2. The Tribe’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 115, is DENIED as to the following:
a. The State can impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store (claims one and three).
b. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not discriminatory (claim four)
3. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 78, is GRANTED to the extent that:
a. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not preempted by IGRA (claim one).
b. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not discriminatory (claim four).
c. The collection and remittance of taxes on nonmember consumer purchases at the Store are not preempted by federal law and do not infringe on tribal sovereignty (claims two and five).
4. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 78, is DENIED as to the following:
a. The State cannot impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services as to the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop (claim one).
b. The State cannot condition renewal of the Tribe’s beverage license on the collection and remittance of a use tax on nonmember consumer purchases (claims six and eight).
5. The State does not have jurisdiction to assess a use tax on nonmember purchases at the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop. However, the State does have jurisdiction to assess a use tax on nonmember purchases at the Store (claim seven).
6. Each party requested declaratory relief. Tribal sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature. This Court has no jurisdiction due to tribal sovereign immunity to order the ‘payment to the State from the escrow funds held pursuant to the Deposit Agreement. The Tribe, however, agreed in the Deposit Agreement that those funds would be held by the escrow agent pending the outcome of this lawsuit. Accordingly, the escrow agent may now, subject to any stay granted pursuant to an appeal, pay the funds held in escrow to the Tribe and to the State in their respective shares under the guidance provided by this declaratory judgment.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.