Artman Guidance

Sens. McCain and Kyl Introduce Bill to Reinstate the so-called “Artman Guidance”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the text of S. 1424:

CEL11662.

It’s a bill:

To clarify the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior in making a determination whether to take off-reservation land into trust for gaming purposes.

The crux of the bill is the “reasonable commuting standard.”

NYTs Coverage of Interior Shift on Off-Reservation Casinos

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

An excerpt:

Rescinding a Bush-era rule, the Interior Department said Tuesday that it would consider allowing Indian tribes to build casinos far from their reservations, raising the possibility that new gambling resorts could be built close to New York and elsewhere around the country.

The rule, adopted in January 2008, said that tribes could not open casinos beyond commuting distance from their reservations, and led to the rejection of at least 22 applications, including one by the St. Regis Mohawk tribe, which wanted to build a casino 350 miles from its reservation and 90 miles northwest of New York City.

Another tribe seeking to build a casino near New York, the Stockbridge-Munsee, sued the department over the ruling, and New York’s senior senator,Charles E. Schumer, lobbied heavily to have it overturned.

On Tuesday, Larry Echo Hawk, the assistant secretary for Indian affairs at the department, said the rule was being rescinded, adding that it “was unnecessary and was issued without the benefit of tribal consultation.”

Turtle Talk Poll: What Will Be the Impact of Pulling the 2008 Off-Rez Gaming Guidance Memo?

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

As Indianz reported, ASIA Larry Echo-Hawk has pulled the much-maligned 2008 guidance memo on off-reservation gaming. What impact will that decision have?

You may click on more than one. Clicking means you think “yes.” Not clicking means you think “no.”

St. Croix Band v. Kempthorne Materials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are many of the pleadings in the St. Croix Band v. Kempthorne case reported earlier today (opinion).

st-croix-amended-complaint

us-motion-to-dismiss-st-croix-complaint

st-croix-opposition-to-govt-motion-to-dismiss

govt-reply-brief

st-croix-supplemental-memorandum

govt-response-to-supplemental-memorandum

dct-order-denying-preliminary-injunction

Federal Courts Holds Artman Guidance NOT Reviewable

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

In St. Croix Band of Chippewa Indians v. Kempthorne, the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed St. Croix’s challenge to the Secretary’s authority to refuse to take off-reservation land into trust. The court found that the Artman Guidance letter is not final agency approval.

dct-order-of-dismissal-st-croix

Rand, Meister, and Light on the “Guidance”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kathryn Rand, Alan Meister, and Steven Light have published “Questionable Federal ‘Guidance’ on Off-Reservation Indian Gaming: Legal and Economic Issues” in the Gaming Law Review. Here is a snippet:

In January 2008, Carl Artman, the assistant secretary for Indian affairs at the U.S. Department of the Interior, issued a memorandum titled, “Guidance on taking off-reservation land into trust for gaming purposes.” The guidance memo signaled a significant change in the department’s position on Indian gaming on newly acquired trust lands or “off-reservation” gaming, a change that had been brewing for more than four years.
The memo also garnered the immediate attention of Congress. In February 2008, the House Committee on Natural Resources held an oversight hearing on the memo for the purpose of examining “how the new Guidance was developed, whether it was lawfully enacted, the ramifications of the new requirements on all off-reservation fee to trust applications, and whether this signifies an attempt by the Administration to change Federal policy towards Indian tribes.”  As Committee Chair Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) stated, “The potential change to the Federal policy towards Indian tribes is disturbing …. [W]e have to question if this Administration is advocating a policy to keep Indians on the reservation.”
Several legal and economic questions are raised by the guidance memo. This article is by no means intended to be the last word on the memo’s legality, nor on the wisdom of its requirements from legal, public policy, or economic perspectives. It is, however, meant to question the memo’s procedural genesis and substantive “guidance.”