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

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.

N.Y. Appellate Division Affirms Legality of Gaming Compacts

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


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.

Kevin Washburn on Recurring Issues in Indian Gaming Compact Approval

Kevin Washburn has posted “Recurring Issues in Indian Gaming Compact Approval” on SSRN. The paper is forthcoming in Gaming Law and Economics.

The abstract:

As tribal-state gaming compact negotiations under IGRA have become more complex and ratification in state and tribal legislative bodies has become more political, state and tribal negotiators sometimes lose sight of important interests protected by IGRA through the Secretary of the Interior’s review authority. IGRA is fairly clear about the terms parties may and may not negotiate in compacts and Interior has begun to enforce IGRA more and more rigorously in the review process. To minimize the risk of disapproval, state and tribal negotiators are wise to consider several issues that are likely to raise concerns among federal reviewers. This essay surveys some of the more common issues that continue to arise in compact negotiations.

On another, unrelated note, Professor Washburn’s photography skills were in fine form this last weekend.

Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico Good Faith Negotiations Complaint


1 Complaint

An excerpt:

The Pueblo and the State previously negotiated a Class III gaming compact that expired on June 30, 2015. The Pueblo formally requested that the State enter into a compact regarding the Pueblo’s Class III gaming activities on its Indian lands beyond the expiration of the current compact. More than 180 days have expired since the Pueblo made its initial  request. Accordingly, the Pueblo now seeks a determination by this Court that the State has failed to conclude negotiations in good faith. With that determination, the Court has jurisdiction to invoke IGRA’s remedies that will result in a negotiated compact, or submission of last best offers to a mediator (“baseball arbitration”), and/or procedures promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior to govern the Pueblo’s Class III gaming activities.

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

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.

Oregon COA Affirms Governor’s Authority to Enter into Indian Gaming Compacts

Here are the materials in Dewberry v. Kitzhaber (Or. App.):

Oregon COA Opinion

Appellants Opening Brief

Respondents Joint Answer Brief

Tribal Amicus Brief

Appellants Reply Brief

An excerpt:

In summary, the Oregon legislature authorized the Governor to enter into agreements with tribes to ensure that the state does not infringe on tribal rights under federal laws, such as IGRA. The trial court correctly concluded that the Governor acted lawfully under ORS 190.110 in negotiating and entering into the tribal-state compact with the Tribes.