Indian gaming – Page 44

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.

BIA’s Brief in Support of Partial Dismissal in Mashpee Wampanoag Carcieri Challenge

April 22, 2016Sarah M Donnelly1 Comment

Here are the materials, so far, in Littlefield et. al. v. U.S. Department of Interior (D. Mass.):

Doc. 1 – Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Doc. 10 – United States’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Partial Dismissal

Except:

Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action seeks a declaration that the IRA, enacted over eighty years ago, is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs specifically allege that the IRA’s provision authorizing the Secretary to acquire land in trust on behalf of federally-recognized Indian tribes somehow reflects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. This legal question, however, has long been resolved against Plaintiffs by all courts to consider it, including the First Circuit in a decision binding on this Court. Federal courts have held, consistently and repeatedly, that the Secretary’s authority to acquire land in trust under the IRA does not violate the United States Constitution because there are sufficient intelligible principles provided in the statute and its legislative history to guide the Secretary’s discretion whether to acquire land in trust on behalf of a tribe. Moreover, it has been over 85 years since the Supreme Court invalidated any statute on the grounds of excessive delegation of legislative authority. The Supreme Court in fact has only found two statues to be a violation of the non-delegation doctrine, neither of which are comparable to the statute at issue here. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action.

Pauma Band Cross-Petition in Gaming Compact Dispute with California

April 22, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the cert petition in Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. State of California:

Pauma Cert Petn

Question presented:

One of the statutory elements for establishing a prima facie case of bad faith negotiation against a state under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., is that “a Tribal-State compact has not been entered into.” 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(ii)(I). In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit interpreted this language according to the status quo ante, holding that an Indian tribe who sought and obtained a declaration rescinding a compact could not pursue a claim for latent bad faith negotiation against a state that induced the compact through material misrepresentations in order to increase its tax receipts (i.e., “revenue sharing”) by 2,460%. With this holding seeming to violate deep-rooted principles of retroactivity and interpretive norms for the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act set forth within this Court’s precedent, the question presented is:

Whether an Indian tribe can pursue a bad faith negotiation claim against a state under Section 2710(d)(7)(A)(i) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act after rescinding a compact induced by misrepresentation or other latent bad faith conduct, and thus bringing its circumstances into compliance with the statutory requirement that “a Tribal-State compact has not been entered into.”

California’s petition is here.

Lower court materials here (panel, en banc).

Federal Court Dismisses Wrongful Termination Claim against Coushatta Tribe

April 15, 2016April 15, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Anderson v. Coushatta Casino Resort (W.D. La.):

18-1 Motion to Dismiss

22 Reponse

25 DCT Order

Federal Court Allows Menominee to Intervene in Forest County Challenge to Gaming Compact Rejection

April 15, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Forest County Potawatomi Community v. United States (D.D.C.):

41 DCT Order Granting Menominee Motion to Intervene

Briefs are here.

Seventh Circuit Briefs in MCZ Development Corp. v. Dickinson Wright

April 13, 2016June 7, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

MCZ Opening Brief

Dickinson Brief

Other briefs TK

Lower court materials here.

Statement from the appellant’s brief:

This is a legal malpractice action stemming from legal services and advice Appellees provided Appellants beginning in December 2009. The legal services and advice pertained to Appellants’ planned investment in and development of an Indian gaming casino in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, in conjunction with the Kialegee Tribal Town (the “Tribe”), an Indian tribe.The advice which Appellants contend caused them to sustain damages hinged on whether potential legal or regulatory issues could prevent Appellants from moving forward with the project once development and construction of the site began.

N.Y. Appellate Division Affirms Legality of Gaming Compacts

April 11, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Schulz v. State of New York Executive:

520670

An excerpt:

The Gaming Act, among other things, provided a statutory framework for regulating casino gambling within the state and effectuated three agreements entered into between the state and the Oneida Indian Nation, the Seneca Nation of Indians and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Indian Nations). Those agreements generally provided that the state would grant the Indian Nations exclusive gaming rights within their respective geographic areas in exchange for a percentage of the gaming revenues and/or support for the then proposed casino gambling referendum, which was passed by the voters at the November 2013 general election.