North Carolina Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Eastern Band Cherokee Gaming Compact

The case is McCracken and Amick Inc v. Perdue. Appellate court materials are here. The original trial court order is here.

Here are the briefs so far:

McCracken and Amick Petition for Discretionary Review

McCracken and Amick Brief

North Carolina Brief

M&A Reply coming soon!

D.C. Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Amador County Challenge to Gaming Compact Approval re: Buena Vista Me-Wuk

Here is today’s opinion in Amador County v. Salazar. Briefs are here. Lower court materials are here.

An excerpt:

Pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians entered into a compact with the state of California to engage in gaming on its tribal land and then petitioned the Secretary of the Interior for approval of that compact. Under the Act, “[i]f the Secretary does not approve or disapprove a compact . . . [within] 45 days . . . the compact shall be considered to have been approved by the Secretary, but only to the extent the compact is consistent with the provisions of” the Act. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8)(C). In this case, the Secretary took no action within forty-five days, thus allowing the compact to become effective. Amador County, in which the Buena Vista Tribe’s land is located, challenged the Secretary’s “no-action” approval, claiming that the land fails to qualify as “Indian Land”—a statutory requirement for gaming. Although the district court rejected the Secretary’s argument that Amador County lacked standing, it dismissed the suit, finding the Secretary’s inaction unreviewable under several provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. Amador County now appeals. We agree with the district court that the County has standing, but because we conclude that the Secretary’s inaction is in fact reviewable, we reverse and remand for the district court to consider the merits in the first instance.

Bay Mills Seeks Stay of Vanderbilt Casino Shut-Down Order

Here:

BMIC Motion for Stay

BMIC Brief in Support of Motion for Stay

Neighbors of Casino San Pablo Complaint against Interior and NIGC re: Lytton Rancheria Gaming Dismissed

Here are the materials in Neighbors of Casino San Pablo v. Salazar (D. D.C.):

US Motion to Dismiss Neighbors Complaint

Lytton Rancheria Proposed Motion to Dismiss

DCT Order Dismissing Neighbors Complaint

Challenge to 40% Maximum Revenue Limit for Gaming Management Companies Rejected

Here are the materials in Crosby Lodge v. NIGC (D. Nev.):

Crosby Lodge Motion

NIGC Motion

DCT Judgment in Crosby Lodge v NIGC

Previous proceedings in this case are posted here.

Briefing in City of Temecula v. Pechanga Band Gaming Dispute

Here are the materials:

Pechanga Motion to Dismiss

Temecula Opposition

Pechanga Reply

The complaint is here.

News coverage from Pechanga.net.

In re Howley Part 2 — Tribal Per Cap Still Subject to Bankruptcy Award

Here: In re Howley Order after Motion to Amend

Earlier materials in the same proceeding are here.

Gila River v. United States — Federal Court Affirms Interior Decision to Take Land Into Trust for Tohono O’odham Nation

Here is the opinion, via Indianz.

Here are the key materials:

Glendale Motion for Summary J

GRIC Motion for Summary J

TON Motion for Summary J

USA Motion for Summary J in Gila River v US

 

 

Gambling Addicts Challenge to Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ Video Gaming Compact Proceeds

The State of Idaho and the Dept. of Interior had filed motions to dismiss. The district court granted Idaho’s motion, but held that the gambling addicts, who are neighbors to the tribal casino, had standing to challenge the compact approval by the Secretary.

The plaintiffs had previously challenged the compact under Idaho state law, losing in the Idaho Supreme Court.

Here are the materials in Knox v. Interior (D. Idaho):

DCT Order on USA and Idaho Motions to Dismiss

Idaho Gov. Motion to Dismiss

Knox and Dotson Opposition to Idaho Motion

Idaho Reply

USA Motion to Dismiss Knox Complaint

Knox and Dotson Opposition to US Motion

US Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Knox Complaint

2009 Interior Solicitor Opinion on IGRA and “Restricted Fee Lands”

Here: M-37023