Indian gaming

Shane Plumer on Turning Gaming Dollars Into Non-Gaming Revenue

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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.

Second Circuit Decides Cayuga Nation v. Tanner

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Seneca Gaming Case, Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Chaudhuri

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order list today.

Briefs here.

California v. Pauma Cert Stage Briefs

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the briefs in California v. Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation:

Cal v Pauma Cert Petn

Pauma Cert Opposition Brief

And Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation v. California:

Pauma Cert Petn

California Cert Opposition Brief

Lower court materials here (panel, en banc).

 

Pueblo of Santa Clara Sues over State Court Jurisdiction in Tribal Casino Tort Claims

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Pueblo of Santa Clara v. Singleton (D. N.M.):

1 Complaint

 

Ante Up: Pojoaque Pueblo is the last holdout in a fight over the state’s cut of gaming revenues

Sarah M Donnelly

Link to Santa Fe Register article by Steven Hsieh here.

Federal Court Dismisses Slip and Fall Suit against Barona Band

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Butler v. Barona Band of Mission Indians of California (C.D. Cal.):

7 Motion to Dismiss

10 Opposition

11 Reply

13 DCT Order

Pojoaque/New Mexico Contempt Materials in Gaming Compact Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico (D. N.M.):

53 Pojoaque Motion for Contempt

62 Response

68 Reply

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.

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

Sarah 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

Matthew 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).