Here:
KG Urban Motion to Expedite CA1 Appeal
Mass Response to Motion to Expedite
Lower court materials are here and here and here.
News coverage here, h/t Pechanga.
indian gaming regulatory act
Constitutional Challenge to IGRA by Anti-Seneca Gaming Advocate Rejected
As first noted on Indianz, here are the materials in Warren v. United States (W.D. N.Y.):
Warren Proposed Amended Complaint
DCT Order Dismissing Warren Complaint
UPDATE: 01 Amicus Seneca Nation of Indians’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint
Materials in KG Urban Enterprises LLC v. Patrick: Federal Court Challenge Brought against Mass. Gaming Law (Tribal Provision) — UPDATED
New IRS Revenue Procedure 2011-56 (Gaming Per Cap Trust Funds Safe Harbor)
From the IRS:
Revenue Procedure 2011-56 clarifies, modifies, and supersedes Rev. Proc. 2003-14 in response to comments. The revenue procedures provide a safe harbor for Indian tribes to establish trusts for tribal members who are minors or legally incompetent for the distribution of gaming revenues under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). If the provisions of the revenue procedures are followed, an Indian tribe is treated as the grantor and owner of the trust. The trust beneficiary is not taxed on distributions to the trust or income earned by the trust until actually or constructively received.
Revenue Procedure 2011-56 will appear in IRB 2011-49 dated Dec. 5, 2011.
Appellee Briefs in State of Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (CA6)
Here:
State of Michigan Appellee Brief
Here is a pic of the now-shuttered BMIC Vanderbilt Casino:
And some lovely intertribal rhetoric:
Update in Wyandotte Nation v. Salazar
The government has moved to change venue and the State of Kansas has moved to intervene:
Toward Intertribal Revenue Sharing
Indian gaming is heading for bad news, if it isn’t already there. Indian tribes defending their share of big gaming markets are paying off states, lobbyists (and the federal Reps and Senators linked to them), and big time lawyers (hopefully someone who went to PLSI, so at least they have some soul), sometimes to the tune of millions of dollars.
It kinda works one of two ways, although they overlap. The first way, the oldest way, is political — Tribe A pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to a lawyer for advice. Big time lawyer says spend hundreds of thousands on campaign contributions to whomever in D.C. is in power, and perhaps the state elected officials, too, if gaming compacts negotiations are needed, to keep Tribe B from getting into Tribe A’s market. Meanwhile, Tribe B is paying another big time lawyer for advice on how to get into Tribe A’s market (of course, they don’t agree it’s Tribe A’s market; to them, it’s Tribe B’s market). Tribe B’s lawyers recommending spending hundreds of thousands more on the same political entities. Tribe A and B pay tons of dough really for nothing, since the political entities are getting a windfall.
Option two isn’t much better (and must less used so far), with the bigger gaming tribe using the gaming compacting process to pay more money to the state to protect a gaming share. The smaller gaming tribes who want into the bigger gaming tribes wheelhouse will naturally agreed to pay even more to the state. State gets more and more.
Option three is litigation, losers all around.
Why not negotiate among tribes first? Who says political entities in the federal government and states are good at gatekeeping or keeping their word? If Tribe A wants Tribe B out, why don’t they approach each other and at least ask what’s it is worth to keep the status quo? Why should politicians and states ever get anything from an Indian tribe?
Yeah, some tribes need gaming compacts. This might not help them, though after Rincon, states can’t just ask for revenue sharing in exchange for a compact.
Intertribal revenue sharing has to be the future, or else all the intertribal conflict will destroy most of the good things about Indian gaming.
Wyandotte Nation v. Salazar: Off-Reservation Gaming Application Complaint
New Scholarship on Indian Gaming and Bankruptcy
Emir Aly Crowne (né Mohammed), Andrew Black, and S. Alex Constantin have posted Not Out of the (Fox)Woods Yet: Indian Gaming and the Bankruptcy Code on SSRN. It has been published in the UNLV Gaming Law Journal.
Here is the abstract:
Does tribunal sovereignty trump federal bankruptcy law? This is the basic question we explore in this article. We will argue that where a tribal corporate entity voluntarily enters into a business contract with non-tribal investors, it must be made subject not only to the relevant rules and regulations, but also to the terms of the agreements it undertakes. Being commercially participatory entails being commercially responsible. It means paying liabilities where and as they become due in accordance with law and the principles of equity.
Oral Argument Transcript in Amador County v. Salazar
Here:
Transcript Oral Argument DCCircuit Amador County v USA Case
Some very striking comments from the judges on the ability of outsiders to challenge the viability of gaming compacts between tribes and states, especially the import of the Patchak case. Worth a read.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.