indian gaming regulatory act

Misunderstanding the Word “Monopoly” AND Forgetting to Read the Commerce Clause, Gaming Company Sues to End IGRA

January 12, 2022January 12, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States (D.D.C.):

Bill Wood on the Potential History of Indian Gaming

December 9, 2021December 9, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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.

California COA Decides Rincon Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation Cal. v. Flynt

October 29, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials:

Opinion

Appellants Brief

Respondents Brief

Prior post here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer

October 4, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

August 13, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

Prior posts here and here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Club One Casino v. Haaland

June 21, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s order list.

Here are the cert stage briefs in Club One.

Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer Cert Petition

May 13, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

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.