This case might be sitting around for a while, so to tide you over….
Picayune Rancheria Answering Brief
indian gaming regulatory act
NIGC Indian Lands Opinion: Iowa Tribe, Oklahoma Allotments, and Section 20
Here.
Removal of Casino Slip and Fall to Federal Court Fails
Here are the materials in Keim v. Harrah’s Operating Co. (S.D. Cal.):
Cert Petition Filed over Nooksack Casino
Here is the petition in North Country Community Alliance v. Salazar: North County Community Alliance Cert Petition
Lower court materials are here.
The questions presented:
Must the National Indian Gaming Commission establish its jurisdiction over a tribe’s potential gaming sites, by determining that such sites qualify as “Indian lands”, before approving the tribe’s gaming ordinance?
Does the National Indian Gaming Commission act ultra vires when it approves a tribal gaming ordinance which allows construction and operation of a gaming facility on land which is never determined by the Commission to be “Indian lands”?
There doesn’t appear to be any reason to grant cert in this case. By the petitioner’s own admission, there is no circuit split. This is a case of first impression before the Court, and that usually means a death knell for the petition.
Fort Independence Survives Summary Judgment in IGRA Good Faith Suit
Here are the materials in Fort Independence Indian Community v. California (E.D. Cal.):
California Motion for Summary J
Fort Independence Motion for Summary J
Fort Independence Response Brief
An excerpt, listing the issues decided and the remaining issue:
The court grants summary adjudication as to the following issues:* The State’s proposal comport with 25 U.S.C. section 2710(d)(3)(C)* Forfeiture of the right to receive RSTF payments is not a tax, fee, charge, or assessment.* The offer of permission to conduct Class III gaming is not a “concession.”* The offer of exclusivity is a concession.A material question exists as to whether the concession of exclusivity is meaningful. The matter will proceed for resolution of this issue.
N. Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Poker Ban, Eastern Band Cherokee Gaming Compact
Here is the opinion in McCracken and Amick v. Perdue. News coverage here, via Pechanga.
An excerpt:
The State appeals from the trial court’s order entering judgment in favor of plaintiffs McCracken and Amick, Incorporated,doing business as The New Vemco Music Co., and its principal owner, Ralph Amick, on their claim that the State is not permitted under federal Indian gaming law to grant the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina (“the Tribe”) exclusive rights to conduct certain gaming on tribal land while prohibiting it throughout the rest of the State. We conclude, however, that state law providing the Tribe with exclusive gaming rights does not violate federal Indian gaming law. Consequently, we reverse the trial court’s order.
The state’s briefs are here (as well as the trial court opinion). Other briefs:
Dicara v. Cahuilla Band — Immunity Waiver in Gaming Contract Dispute
Here is the opinion from the California Court of Appeals (4th Dist., Div. 2).
An excerpt:
The trial court issued a postjudgment assignment order (Code of Civ. Proc., § 708.510) against the Cahuilla Band of Indians (Cahuilla), in favor of Mary DiCara dba Scott Leasing (Scott). Cahuilla contends the assignment order should be reversed because (1) the superior court did not have jurisdiction to issue the order; (2) the lease agreement, upon which the underlying damage award was based, was void since inception; and (3) federal law and Cahuilla’s revenue allocation plan preempt the superior court’s order. Scott contends that it should be awarded attorney’s fees on appeal. We affirm the judgment and award attorney’s fees to Scott.
The trial court issued a postjudgment assignment order (Code of Civ. Proc.,§ 708.510)1, 2 against the Cahuilla Band of Indians (Cahuilla), in favor of Mary DiCaradba Scott Leasing (Scott). Cahuilla contends the assignment order should be reversedbecause (1) the superior court did not have jurisdiction to issue the order; (2) the leaseagreement, upon which the underlying damage award was based, was void sinceinception; and (3) federal law and Cahuilla’s revenue allocation plan preempt thesuperior court’s order. Scott contends that it should be awarded attorney’s fees onappeal. We affirm the judgment and award attorney’s fees to Scott.
Idaho Supreme Court Dismisses Claim by Gambling Addicts that State Indian Gaming Law was Unconstitutional
Here is the opinion in Knox v. State of Idaho. And the court’s press release.
From the opinion:
This is an action seeking to have Idaho Code §§ 67-429B and 67-429C declared unconstitutional. The district court dismissed this action on the ground that the Plaintiffs lacked standing. It concluded that the relief sought would not redress the Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. We affirm.
29 Palms Band v. Schwarzeneggar State Income Tax Case
As this article reports, the 29 Palms Band sued the State of California over gaming-related income on behalf of its off-reservation members. The court granted an earlier motion to dismiss, but allowed the Band leave to file an amended complaint on whether IGRA preempts state taxation.
Here are the materials so far:
Sept DCT Order Granting California Motion to Dismiss
Fitch Ratings Waiting for Federal Government to Make Indian Gaming Decisions
From dBusinessNews (via Pechanga):
In a special report released today (Nov 2009 Fitch Report), Fitch Ratings says there are two important issues that will determine the future for the Native American gaming industry’s expansion: whether tribes will have access to the debt capital needed to finance growth, and federal government policy decisions regarding approvals for future Native American gaming developments on off-reservation lands. Investor sentiment on the Native American gaming sector has soured in this economic downturn, as poor trends in regional gaming markets pressure credit profiles, three tribes defaulted on bond payments in 2009, and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation recently announced a forbearance agreement with its senior lenders after the Tribal Chairman made comments highlighting investors’ concerns about the unique legal issues involved in lending to a tribal government.
Fitch believes many investors are likely to take a ‘wait-and-see’ approach with respect to these ongoing debt workout and restructuring efforts before committing significant additional funds to the sector, making it unlikely a tribe would be successful in arranging debt financing for a large-scale greenfield casino development at the present time (for additional information on this topic see Fitch research ‘Managing Through Distress: Considerations for Investors in Distressed Native American Gaming Credits’, dated May 11, 2009). However, over the longer term, the federal government’s policy stance with respect to approvals for off-reservation gaming projects will be the most important factor shaping the future growth path of the Native American gaming industry.
‘Right now the Native American gaming sector is feeling the effects of poor gaming operating trends and unfavorable credit market conditions, but those issues are likely to be less limiting down the road assuming an economic recovery and improved investor sentiment on the sector,’ said Megan Neuburger, Director at Fitch. ‘Actions taken by the federal government under the Bush Administration in 2008 were clearly an effort to curb off-reservation gaming expansion. Department of Interior officials have recently made public comments that they are in the process of reviewing their policy on off-reservation gaming approvals, and we’re closely following the developments to assess their impact on the industry.’
According to the report, since the promulgation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) set the framework for the Native American gaming industry in 1988, there has been significant political controversy. Proponents of expansion tout the benefits of economic development, while opponents decry ‘reservation shopping’ and the ills associated with the expansion of casino gaming. While it has never been easy for a tribe to obtain the regulatory approvals necessary for gaming on off-reservation land, recent developments have made the likelihood of a successful outcome even more remote. These developments include guidance and a rule published by the U.S. Department of the Interior in 2008, as well as the 2009 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Carcieri v. Salazar.
In the special report, Fitch explains these developments, the associated impact on the approval process, and the actions the federal government may take under the Obama Administration with respect to these issues, as well as providing a summary of the implications for the credit outlook for the sector. ‘Native American Gaming Insights: Off-Reservation Gaming Approvals: How Will the Feds Play Their Hand?’ is now available on Fitch’s web site at ‘www.fitchratings.com’.
Additional information is available at ‘www.fitchratings.com’.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.