Here.
If anyone has the denial letter, please send it along.
Here it is. And here:
2017-07-24 DOI Cason ltr to Sault Ste. Marie denying mandatory trust acqn
Indian gaming
(Split) Tenth Circuit Rules against Pojoaque Pueblo in Gaming Dispute with State of New Mexico
Here is the opinion in Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico.
An excerpt:
Plaintiffs-Appellants Pueblo of Pojoaque and its governor, Joseph M. Talachy, (collectively “the Pueblo”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal of its claim for declaratory and injunctive relief based on the State of New Mexico’s alleged unlawful interference with Class III gaming operations on the Pueblo’s lands. Pueblo of Pojoaque v. New Mexico, 214 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (D.N.M. 2016). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
From the dissent:
This appeal turns on what constitutes regulation of tribal gaming.
The majority answers narrowly, stating that New Mexico is regulating Indian gaming only when the regulation is directly applied to Indian gaming on tribal land. In my view, this approach is unsupportable and unrealistic. Under the allegations in the Pueblo’s complaint, New Mexico is trying—with considerable success—to disrupt the Pueblo’s gaming operations by targeting the Pueblo’s vendors. This disruption is not
softened by the state’s strategy of targeting vendors.
Briefs here.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Citizens for a Better Way v. Zinke
Federal Court Dismisses Slip and Fall Action against Fort Mojave Indian Tribe’s Casino Operations
Here are the materials in Ireson v. AVI Casino Enterprises (D. Nev.):
Federal Court Orders Shingle Springs Miwok into Arbitration with Labor Union
Here are the materials in Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians v. Unite Here International Union (E.D. Cal) (No. 16-1057):
And here are the materials in Unite Here International Union v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (E.D. Cal.) (No. 16-384):
News Profile of Michigan Online Gambling Bill + Tribal Opposition
Here.
Federal Court Dismisses Casino Patron Effort to Overrule Tribal Tort Claims Act Interpretation
Here are the materials in Wilson v. Umpqua Indian Development Corporation (D. Or.):
California COA Affirms $49M Judgment in Inter-Tribal Contract Dispute
Here is the opinion in Yavapai-Apache Nation v. La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians:
Yavapai-Apache Nation v La Posta Band
Briefs:
Yavapai-Apache Nation Reply Brief
Yavapai-Apache Nation Response Brief
An excerpt:
This appeal arises from a contract dispute between two Indian tribes: Yavapai Apache Nation (YAN) and La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians (La Posta). YAN is an Arizona-based tribe with about 2,400 members, and La Posta is a California based tribe with about 15 adult members. In the parties’ contract, La Posta promised to repay more than $23 million to YAN for funds borrowed to develop a casino that later proved unsuccessful. The parties waived sovereign immunity in their contract.
***
In the final judgment, the superior court awarded YAN $48,893,407.97 on its contract claim, and entered judgment against La Posta on its declaratory relief claim based on the court’s finding this claim was not ripe. Both parties filed appeals from this judgment. For the reasons explained, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment in its entirety.
Tenth Circuit Holds NIGC Indian Lands Opinion Letters Not Final Agency Action
Here is the opinion in State of Kansas v. Zinke.
An excerpt:
The question in this case is whether a legal opinion letter issued by the Acting General Counsel of the National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”) regarding the eligibility of Indian lands for gaming constitutes “final agency action” subject to judicial review. In response to a request from the Quapaw Tribe, the NIGC Acting General Counsel issued a legal opinion letter stating that the Tribe’s Kansas trust land was eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”). The State of Kansas and the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Cherokee, Kansas, filed suit, arguing that the letter was arbitrary, capricious, and erroneous as a matter of law. The district court concluded that the letter did not constitute reviewable final agency action under IGRA or the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. IGRA’s text, statutory scheme, legislative history, and attendant regulations demonstrate congressional intent to preclude judicial review of legal opinion letters. Further, the Acting General Counsel’s letter does not constitute final agency action under the APA because it has not determined any rights or obligations or produced legal consequences. In short, the letter merely expresses an advisory, non-binding opinion, without any legal effect on the status quo ante.
Briefs here.
Spokane County Sues to Stop Spokane Tribe Casino
Here is the complaint in Spokane County v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Wash.):
An excerpt:
Spokane County, Washington (“County”) brings this action seeking review of and relief from a June 15, 2015 decision by the Department of the Interior (“Department”) approving a proposal by the Spokane Tribe of Indians to build its third casino directly below Fairchild Air Force Base’s (“Fairchild AFB”) VFR traffic pattern for Fairchild’s primary runway. The Department’s determination that this casino will not be detrimental to the surrounding community violates federal statutes governing such decisions, overrides the opposition of the vast majority of officials elected to represent the interests of the surrounding community, is belied by the record evidence and long-standing agency policy, and defies basic common sense.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.