Here are the materials in State of Texas v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (W.D. Tex.):
592 Alabama Coushatta Tribe Amicus Brief
Here are the materials in State of Texas v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (W.D. Tex.):
592 Alabama Coushatta Tribe Amicus Brief
Shane Plumer has published “Turning Gaming Dollars Into Non-Gaming Revenue: Hedging For The Seventh Generation” in the Journal of Law and Inequality’s Sua Sponte.
Here is the abstract:
There are four levels of diversification that tribes engage in: level one consists of amenities to gaming facilities; level two consists of tourist-reliant non-gaming businesses; level three involves on-reservation businesses that export products off the reservation; and the most sophisticated level involves acquiring off-reservation businesses in order to access more diverse markets. Historically, tribal economic development has been hindered by lack of access to capital markets, limitations placed on federal funding, federal Indian policy that requires creation of jobs on the reservation, information asymmetry and conservative investment strategies that are holdovers from how federal agencies invested tribal funds. This article provides a roadmap for cutting-edge tribal economic development that focuses on off-reservation investment by mobilizing investment banks and private equity in order to diversify tribal investment portfolios.
Here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
Plaintiffs‐Appellants, the Cayuga Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe, and individual officers, employees, and representatives of the Cayuga Nation, filed this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (David N. Hurd, Judge) against the Village of Union Springs, the Board of Trustees of the Village, and individual Village officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs contend that the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701‐2721, preempts the defendants’ efforts to enforce a local anti‐gambling ordinance against a gaming facility located on land owned by Cayuga Nation.
The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case because it could not determine, in light of an ongoing leadership dispute within Cayuga Nation, whether the lawsuit was authorized as a matter of tribal law. Following a motion for reconsideration, the district court additionally held that the individual plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue in their own right.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the district court had jurisdiction because the Bureau of Indian Affairs had recognized Clint Halftown, who initiated this suit, as the Cayuga Nation’s “federal representative,” thereby relieving the court of the need to resolve questions of tribal law, and because the individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge the anti‐gaming ordinance. We agree and therefore VACATE the district court’s order dismissing the complaint and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Briefs here.
Here are the briefs in California v. Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation:
And Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation v. California:
California Cert Opposition Brief
Lower court materials here (panel, en banc).
Link to Santa Fe Register article by Steven Hsieh here.
Here are the materials in Butler v. Barona Band of Mission Indians of California (C.D. Cal.):
Here are the materials in Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico (D. N.M.):
53 Pojoaque Motion for Contempt
115 DCT Order
An excerpt:
The Court will deny the Motion. First, although the Plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate that they suffered actual damages, such damages would help them to establish that the deferrals constitute threats. Second, the deferrals do not “threaten” the vendors within Judge Brack’s PI’s meaning. The Gaming Board, however, treads perilously close to civil contempt and should take care not to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ vendors.
You must be logged in to post a comment.