Indian gaming

MGM Resorts Sues Connecticut over New Tribal Gaming Act

Singel2 Comments

The complaint, filed in federal district court in Connecticut on August 4, is here: 273548545-MGM-v-Malloy Complaint.

The state law, signed by the Governor on June 19, 2015, is here.

From the complaint:

MGM seeks to have the Act declared invalid and enjoined on two principle bases:

a. The Act violates the Equal Protection Clause because it is a race-based set-aside in favor of the two Preferred Tribes at the expense of all other tribes, races, and entities; and

b. The Act violates the dormant Commerce Clause because it discriminates on its face in favor of the two in-state Preferred Tribes at the expense of out-of-state competitors, all of whom are barred from attempting to develop a casino gaming facility in Connecticut.

Ninth Circuit Denies En Banc Review in Tulalip Tribes Gaming Compact Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington:

2015-05-28 Dkt #57 Denial of Pet for Rehearing En Banc

En banc petition here.

Panel opinion here. Briefs here.

Federal Court Dismisses Title VII Claim against Seminole Casino

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Longo v. Seminole Indian Casino–Immokalee (M.D. Fla.):

24 Motion to Dismiss

25 Response

28 Reply

29 Surreply

31 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Remarkably, Plaintiff demands that the Court ignore this clear and dispositive analysis, and hold that the Tribe is not actually a federally recognized tribe. Plaintiff acknowledges that to do so, this Court would have to find not only that its own previous opinion, Mastro v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, No. 2:12–cv–411–SPC–38UAM, 2013 WL 3350567, at *1 (M.D.Fla.2013), was incorrect, but also that the Eleventh Circuit has erred on multiple occasions too, see Mastro, 578 F.App’x 801; Contour Spa at the Hard Rock, Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 692 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir.2012). To support this sizeable request, Plaintiff provides the Court with numerous pages of historical context and argument, explaining how the Tribe, to this date, has failed to achieve federal recognition as an Indian tribe. But this argument is completely without merit. This Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Florida Supreme Court “rotely” accept that the Tribe is federally recognized because it is. Unsurprisingly, this has not changed in 2015. A simple search in the Federal Register reveals as much. To be sure, the United States Bureau of Indian Affair’s most recent list of “Indian entities … acknowledged to have the immunities and privileges available to federally recognized Indian tribes” includes the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 80 FR 1942–02 (2015) (emphasis added).

Federal Court Denies Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Stop Jamul Indian Village Casino Project

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the order in the case now captioned Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri (E.D. Cal.):

93 DCT Order Denying Injunction

Pleadings and prior orders here.

Tulalip Tribes En Banc Petition in Compact Dispute with State of Washington

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the petition in Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington:

2015-05-01 Dkt# Tulalip Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Panel opinion here. Briefs here.

Pueblo of Isleta v. NLRB Complaint

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

This is an action to protect the sovereignty of the Pueblo of Isleta (“Pueblo”) from infringement by the National Labor Relations Board and its members (collectively the “Board”) in violation of federal law, specifically this Circuit’s clear rule that general federal laws do not apply to a tribal government’s exercise of sovereign authority absent express congressional authorization, and that the NLRA does not contain such express authorization. Dobbs v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 600 F.3d 1275, 1283 (10th Cir. 2010). At a hearing to commence on May 5, 2015 the Board intends – unless restrained – to apply the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169, to the Pueblo’s regulation, operation, and management of gaming in the exercise of its inherent sovereign authority and pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721, by subjecting the Pueblo to trial on unfair labor practice charges brought under Section 8(a) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a). The Board is proceeding on behalf of an individual, Shawna Perea (“Perea”), whom the Board alleges was terminated for allegedly engaging in concerted activities protected under Section 7 of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 157.

Sixth Circuit Materials in Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort v. NLRB

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the briefs:

Saginaw Chippewa Brief

NLRB Brief

Saginaw Chippewa Reply Brief

Law Profs Amicus Brief

NCAI Amicus Brief

Ute Mountain Ute Amicus Brief C

hickasaw Nation Amicus Brief

Oral argument audio here.

Seventh Circuit Ruling Favors Ho-Chunk Nation in Dispute over Poker

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in State of Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation:

CA7 Opinion

An excerpt:

The State of Wisconsin sued the HoChunk Nation of Wisconsin to stop the tribe from offering electronic poker at its Madison gaming facility. The state maintained that the tribe was violating its agreement with the state to refrain from conducting Class III gaming at that location. The tribe responded that its poker is a Class II game that is permitted by law. The state prevailed in the district court, and the Ho-Chunk Nation now appeals. We reverse.

Briefs are here.

Lower court materials here.

Massachusetts Gaming Claims against Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Survive Motions to Dismiss; Counterclaims Do, Too

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the updated materials in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):

65 Massachusetts Opposition to Rule 19 Motion

67 Aquinnah-Gay Head Community Opposition to 11th Amendment Motion to Dismiss

71 Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Reply in Support of Rule 19 Motion

72 Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss on Immunity Grounds

77 Massachusetts Motion to Dismiss

86 Massachusetts Officials Motion to Dismiss

87 Wampanoag Tribe Opposition to Massachusetts Immunity Motion

88 Massachusetts Reply

95 DCT Order Denying Motions to Dismiss

An excerpt:

This lawsuit involves a dispute between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a federally recognized Indian tribe concerning regulatory jurisdiction over civil gaming on Indian lands on Martha’s Vineyard. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and related entities have taken steps to commence commercial gaming operations on tribal lands without a license from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth contends that operating gaming facilities without such a license would violate a 1983 settlement agreement that subjects the lands in question to state civil and criminal jurisdiction (and thus subjects them to state laws regulating gaming). Count 1 of the complaint alleges breach of contract, and Count 2 seeks a declaratory judgment.

The Commonwealth filed suit in state court on December 2, 2013. On December 30, 2013, the Tribe removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. On August 6, 2014, the Court granted motions to intervene by the Town of Aquinnah and the Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association (“AGHCA”). The Tribe has moved to dismiss the AGHCA complaint on the basis of sovereign immunity and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; it has further moved to dismiss all three complaints (with leave to amend) for failure to join the United States as a required party.

On October 24, 2014, the Tribe filed an amended answer that included a counterclaim against the Commonwealth and counterclaims against three third-party defendants (all of whom are officials of the Commonwealth). Plaintiff and third-party defendants have moved to dismiss the counterclaims on the grounds of sovereign immunity (as to the counterclaims against the Commonwealth) and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

For the reasons stated below, the motions of the Tribe will be denied and the motion of counterclaim-defendants will be granted in part and denied in part.

We posted motions to dismiss here. Materials on the state court removal and remand motions here. Complaint here.