indian gaming regulatory act

Little River Band Enters into Collective Bargaining Agreement with United Steelworkers

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the ratifying resolution: 10-1220-059 Ratifying Collective Bargaining Agreement

And the press release:

(December 21st, 2010) Manistee, MI

Historic Collective Bargaining Agreement Signed under Tribal Law

The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians announced today that a collective bargaining agreement has been reached between the Little River Casino Resort and the United Steelworkers.  The agreement is the first to be reached after a union election campaign and collective bargaining process governed solely by tribal law.  Security guards voted last Thursday to approve the agreement. The Board of Directors of the Resort subsequently approved it on Monday, December 20th, and the Agreement is effective upon that approval.

“This is proud moment for our Tribe,” said Stephen Parsons, Tribal Council Speaker for the Band.  “We have worked hard to design a fair law to govern labor relations within our jurisdiction.  This agreement shows that tribal sovereignty works.”

Tribal Ogema Larry Romanelli echoed this sentiment:  “This agreement is just another progressive step for the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians as we accept responsibility for our own affairs and fairly protect the interests of all parties involved.”

The Little River Casino Resort operates pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a sweeping federal law enacted by Congress to enable tribes to generate revenues to support tribal government—similar to state lotteries.  The Band’s law governs labor relations within its public sector.

 

Continue reading →

Federal Court Dismisses California from Private Challenge to Buena Vista Rancheria Gaming Compact

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Interesting decision, in that the court found the private plaintiff could avoid California’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, but dismissed anyway for a lack of a cause of action in IGRA to sue over gaming compacts.

Here are the materials in Friends of Amador County v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Dismissing California

California Motion to Dismiss

Opposition to Cal. Motion

Cal. Reply

Gila River Sues Interior over Tohono O’Odham Glendale Casino

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in Gila River Indian Community v. United States (D. Ariz.): Gila River Complaint.

Ninth Circuit Rejects City of Vancouver Challenge to Cowlitz Gaming Ordinance on Standing Grounds

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in City of Vancouver v. Skibine (h/t Indianz). And the briefs are here.

Bill Rice on the Future of Indian Gaming

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Bill Rice has posted his fine paper, Some Thoughts on the Future of Indian Gaming, published in the Arizona State University Law Journal, Vol. 42, No. 1, p. 219, Spring 2010. Here is the abstract:

In surveying the historical development of Indian gaming, it is apparent that several pre-IGRA legal principles had a significant impact upon the development of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and the relevant caselaw. Since the enactment of the IGRA in 1988, litigation in the federal appelllate courts, has resulted in sufficient decisional law to be instructive in its interpretation, and to prognosticate the future to some degree. In addition to historical and developmental issues, primary areas of litigation have included: 1. Management contracts, and issues relating to their approval, enforcement, and cancellation. 2. Game classification issues in class II (bingo and related games) and class III Indian gaming (generally thought of as “casino” games). 3. Tribal-State compacting regarding class III Indian gaming establishments, and the interplay between the compacting process and the game classification process. 4. The reacquisition of land by Indian tribes, and the eligibility of such lands for gaming purposes pursuant to IGRA.

Given an understanding of the issues raised by the case law in these areas, and related litigation, additional issues may be identified which may be litigated or otherwise determined in the future. This enables one to identify certain policy issues which should be considered by the National Indian Gaming Commission, Congress, the Tribes, and States in the future.

Challenge to NIGC Rulemaking Authority Ongoing

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are current materials in Crosby Lodge v. NIGC (D. Nev.), a challenge to NIGC authority to require that 60 percent of on-reservation gaming revenues of non-Indian gaming entities go to tribes (25 CFR 522.10(c)):

Crosby Lodge Motion for Summary Judgment

NIGC Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

Earlier materials here.

Oregon Trial Court Rules in Favor of Tribes in Gaming Compact Challenge–UPDATED

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the circuit court opinion in State ex rel. Dewberry v. Kulongowski: Dewberry Oregon Circuit Ct Opinion.

The court held that over numerous challenges that a Class III gaming compact between the state and the Confederated Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians relating to the so-called “Hatch Tract” was valid.

Commentary on the case from Scott Crowell:

The well-reasoned opinion, attached, ruled in favor of the Coos Tribe and the State on the merits of the two critical questions before it. First, it held that the prohibition in the Oregon Constitution against casinos is a regulation on the manner in which games may be provided,  rather than a prohibition against any type of gaming, and therefore does not apply to Tribes under IGRA. This leaves in tact the state laws that limit the Lottery games such that gaming cannot be the primary business in taverns, racetracks etc. Second, the court held that the Governor has the authority under both the Oregon Constitution and Oregon statutory law to execute and bind the State to the compact agreements. This is a major victory in that it is the first court case among several brought against compacts in other states that did not opine that the State Legislature must ratify the compacts before they are binding. Tribes in other states have been extorted into paying large fees to state coffers in order to get through the politics of legislative ratification.

Mike McBride on Class II Gaming

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From Indian Gaming Magazine (May 2010): May10_McBride Indian Gaming Compacts in OK– Indian Gaming Ma

More News Coverage of Rincon Band Decision

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

California can’t force Indian tribes to share gambling profits to repair the state’s budget problems, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday.

In a stunning blow to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s tactics when dealing with tribes wanting casinos, a divided, three-judge panel of the appeals court said the governor can’t ask for money for the state’s general fund without offering something of value in return because that amounts to an illegal tax.

The court upheld a 2008 ruling by a federal judge in San Diego that the governor was playing dirty in his negotiations with North County’s Rincon Indian band.

“This is a great, big message to the state,” Rincon Chairman Bo Mazzetti said. “Your days of trying to bully tribes around … those days are over.”

In the decision, Pasadena-based Judge Milan Smith Jr. compared the state’s efforts to those of the federal government when it took land from the Sioux after Lt. Col. George Custer reported finding gold in the Black Hills of South Dakota.

“Today, many tribes have struck figurative gold with casino gaming, and again, some state governments, just like their predecessors, are maneuvering to take, or at least share in, some of that figurative gold,” Smith wrote for a two-judge majority.

In his dissent, Judge Jay Bybee said tribes with casinos here and around the country have agreed for years to share revenue with state governments, just as Schwarzenegger was seeking.

“The holding … does not just upset the apple cart — it derails the whole train,” Bybee wrote. “If the majority is correct, then there is nothing for California to do but to authorize whatever (slot machines) the band wants. The band wins. Everything.”

The state will seek to have Tuesday’s decision reviewed by a larger panel of 9th Circuit judges, said Jeff Macedo, a spokesman for Schwarzenegger.

Legal experts disagreed on whether the case would be reviewed by a larger panel, or by the U.S. Supreme Court, should it be asked.

Macedo said the governor sees this as federal meddling.

“We still believe we were negotiating in good faith,” Macedo said. “This amounts to the federal courts again telling the state what it can and can’t do, and it’s not allowing the state the ability to negotiate these compacts.”

The ruling has big implications for Schwarzenegger, who campaigned on a promise to make tribes “pay their fair share” for casino expansions.

“It’s about millions and millions of dollars to the state of California,” said Matthew L.M. Fletcher, a law professor at Michigan State University who follows Indian legal issues nationally.

The ruling could affect other casino negotiations, he said.

The issue comes down to the kind of bargain that tribes and states can strike. The federal 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, known as IGRA, laid out how tribes can set up Las Vegas-style casinos. It said such gambling requires state approval, but that states can’t tax the profits.

Continue reading →

New Paper by Alex Skibine: “Indian Gaming and Cooperative Federalism”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Alex Skibine has posted his paper, “Indian Gaming and Cooperative Federalism,” forthcoming in the Arizona State Law Journal, on SSRN (also available on BEPress).

Here is the abstract:

In this article I evaluate the role of the federal Indian trust relationship in integrating, without assimilating, Indian tribes in our federalist system. I explore these issues through the lens of Indian gaming and implementation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.