Doc. 1- Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Frank’s Landing Indian Community is suing the National Indian Gaming Commission for rejecting its class II gaming regulations. The Commission ruled in March that the Community is not a federally-recognized Tribe for the purposes of IGRA. Frank’s Landing was recognized by Congress in 1994.
Briefs and orders on the motion for summary judgment in re Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head:
Plaintiffs’ Motion
Doc. 113 – Commonwealth’s memo in support of its motion
Doc. 117 – Town of Aquinnah’s memo in support of its motion
Doc. 121 – AGHCA’s memo in support of its motion
Doc. 133 – Wampanoag Tribe’s opposition brief
Doc. 144 – Town of Aquinnah’s reply brief
Doc. 145 – AGHCA’s reply brief
Doc. 147 – Commonwealth’s reply brief
Defendant’s Motion
Doc. 119 – Wampanoag Tribe’s memo in support of its motion
Doc. 131 – Plaintiffs’ opposition brief
Doc. 150 – Wampanoag Tribe’s reply brief
Doc. 151 – Memorandum and Order
Mass. District Court has granted summary judgment to the Commonwealth against the Wampanoag Tribe (Aquinnah) for its proposed class II gaming facility on settlement lands. The Court ruled that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 did not repeal the Massachusetts Settlement Act of 1987 which prohibited gaming on settlement lands.
The Mashpee Tribe is planning to locate its casino in Taunton, a struggling city in Southeastern Massachusetts, the city where my grandparents lived in fact. The land deal was just finalized. It sounds like the economic development will be a win-win for the Tribe and the Taunton. Here’s the Taunton Daily Gazette story. Previous coverage here.
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.
Here.
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.
Here are the materials in Longo v. Seminole Indian Casino–Immokalee (M.D. Fla.):
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).
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.
Here is the petition in Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.