Washington Federal Court Dismisses Constitutional Challenge to Washington Class III Compacts Allowing Tribal Sports Betting

DALL-E’s interpretation of “tribal sovereign immunity”

Here is the order in Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States (W.D. Wash.):

Briefs here.

Update in Maverick Gaming Challenge to IGRA — New Venue and Rule 19 Motion to Dismiss

Here are the new materials in Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States (W.D. Wash.):

97 Reply

Prior post here.

Shoalwater Bay is serious.

Split Eighth Circuit Reverses State Tax Preemption Judgment Favoring Flandreau Santee Sioux

Here is the opinion in Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Houdyshell.

Briefs here.

Bill Wood on the Potential History of Indian Gaming

William Wood has published “The (Potential) Legal History of Indian Gaming” in the Arizona Law Review. PDF

Here is the abstract:

Indian gaming—casinos owned, operated, and regulated by Indian tribes—has been a transformative force for many Indigenous nations over the past few decades. The conventional narrative is that Indian gaming began when the Seminole Tribe of Florida opened a bingo hall in 1979, other tribes began operating bingo, litigation ensued across the continent, and the U.S. Supreme Court recognized tribes’ rights to operate casinos on their reservations in 1987, in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians. Congress then passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, ushering in the modern Indian gaming era.

This Article provides a heretofore-untold account of the early Indian gaming jurisprudence and related developments. Judges in the earliest Indian gaming cases, which have gone unnoticed, ruled against tribes. Then a series of cases involving the applicability of state law to mobile homes and cigarette and fireworks sales on Indian reservations produced a test under which states could exercise jurisdiction on reservations over activities they prohibit off-reservation but lack jurisdiction over activities they do not prohibit but only regulate. The Supreme Court used this test in Cabazon to hold that state laws did not apply to tribes’ bingo halls and cardrooms.

This Article details the development of the legal doctrine around Indian gaming and how the people involved—legal services attorneys working with legal scholars at the behest and on behalf of Indigenous peoples asserting their sovereignty against state pushback—changed the course of the jurisprudence, providing the framework that yielded the result in Cabazon and Indian gaming as it exists today.

Highly entertaining and recommended.

Palm Springs Desert Sun, March 31, 1971

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer

Here is today’s order list.

Here are the cert stage materials.

Federal Court (again) Rejects Stand Up’s Claims against Interior and North Fork Rancheria

Here are the materials in Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.):


77-1 Interior MSJ

79 Tribe MSJ

80 SUFC Opposition

81 Interior Reply

81 Tribe Reply

89 DCT Order

Prior posts here and here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Club One Casino v. Haaland

Here is today’s order list.

Here are the cert stage briefs in Club One.

Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer Cert Petition


Jamul Pet2

Questions presented:

1. Whether, in 1994, Congress eliminated the distinction between “historic tribes” and “created tribes” and, thereby, eliminated the requirement that a tribe must have pre-existed the United States to have tribal immunity
2. Whether the JIV, which became a quarter-blood Indian group in 1996, is a federally recognized tribe, with tribal immunity, by virtue of the fact that it is still on the list of “Indian tribal entities” eligible to receive BIA services.

Lower court materials here.