Here is the opinion in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California — DCT Order Denying Cal Motion to Dismiss
The materials:
California Motion for Judgment on Pleadings
Big Lagoon Rancheria Opposition Brief
An excerpt:
indian gaming regulatory act
Oregon Supreme Court Allows Suit re: State Governor’s Authority to Enter into Gaming Compact
Here is the opinion in State ex rel. Newberry v. Kulongoski. An excerpt:
Relators filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in Lane County Circuit Court in 2003, challenging the Governor’s authority to enter into a gaming compact with the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Suislaw Indians (the Tribes). Under the compact, the Tribes would be permitted to open a casino near Florence, Oregon. On the state’s motion, the trial court dismissed relators’ petition on two grounds: (1) relators had failed to show that they had no adequate remedy at law; and (2) relators had failed to join the Tribes in the action, in violation of ORCP 29 A. Relators appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. We allowed the state’s petition for review, and we now affirm the Court of Appeals decision.
Student Note on IGRA and Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction
Early Analysis of the Internet Gaming Regulatory Bill
H.R. 2267 has some very interesting tidbits in it. Section 5486(C) states:
No decision by a State under this subsection shall be considered in making any determination with regard to the ability of an Indian tribe to offer any class of gambling activity pursuant to section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. [page 40 of the bill]
Does this mean that Indian tribes can conduct internet gaming without a Class III gaming compact? If so, it might obviate the need for Indian tribes to seek off-reservation gaming opportunities. Why spend time, money, and effort to acquire lands near a metropolitan area, cut a deal with the local units of government and the state’s governor (and legislature), and persuade the Secretary of Interior to take the land into trust for gaming purposes … when the tribe can conduct internet gaming on-reservation? There are, after all, far more potential customers on the internet than in Detroit, or Milwaukee, or the Catskills, or San Francisco.
Rep. Frank Introduces Internet Gaming Regulatory Bill
Here is the bill — HR 2267
We haven’t read it yet, but it will definitely affect Indian Country.
Here’s an interesting excerpt:
(b) Indian Tribe Opt-Out Exercise-
Fort Independence Indian Community v. California — IGRA Good Faith Lawsuit
So far, this case hasn’t proceeded very far, but the question of whether the court will use by analogy the good faith negotiation requirement under the National Labor Relations Act in this Indian Gaming Regulatory Act case has been decided:
In interpreting this good faith standard, courts have taken some guidance from cases interpreting negotiation obligations imposed by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Indian Gaming Related Cases v. California, (Coyote Valley I) 147 F.Supp.2d 1011, 1020-21 (N.D.Cal.2001), affirmed by Coyote Valley II, 331 F.3d 1094. However, the NLRA and IGRA differ in some important aspects. For example, claims of bad faith negotiation under the NLRA are first reviewed by an administrative agency (the National Labor Review Board), see Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Tomco Communications, Inc., 567 F.2d 871, 876 (9th Cir.1978). Under the IGRA, the initial determination is made by the court. Thus, while the NLRA caselaw provides some useful guidance, courts have not applied it to the IGRA “wholesale.” Coyote Valley I, 147 F.Supp.2d at 1021.
Here is the order — DCT Order on Motion to Compel (and the magistrate’s order before that — Magistrate Order on Motion to Compel).
Fort Independence has a motion for summary judgment pending (Fort Independence Motion for Summary Judgment). California’s response is due next week. Still waiting on an 11th Amendment motion. Maybe I missed something….
Drake Law Review Gaming Law Symposium
THE DRAKE LAW REVIEW AND THE INTERNATIONAL MASTERS OF GAMING LAW: GAMING LAW SYMPOSIUM — Sadly, full text is not available for these articles on the Drake Law Review site….
Preface
Keith C. Miller
The Three Billion Dollar Question
Heidi McNeil Staudenmaier & Anne W. Bishop
Gambling with Bankruptcy: Navigating a Casino through Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Proceedings
Robert W. Stocker II & Peter J. Kulick
Alex Rodriguez, a Monkey, and the Game of Scrabble: The Hazards of Using Illogic to Define Legality of Games of Mixed Skill and Chance
Anthony N. Cabot, Glenn J. Light & Karl F. Rutledge
The Hand that’s Been Dealt: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act at 20
Steven Andrew Light & Kathryn R.L. Rand
The “Business of Betting or Wagering”: A Unifying View of Federal Gaming Law
Ben J. Hayes & Matthew J. Conigliaro
Cards and Dice in Smoky Rooms: Tobacco Bans and Modern Casinos
Ronald J. Rychlak
Off-Reservation Trust Acquisition for Gaming Purposes — Butte County v. Hogen
The case is in the D.C. District Court and involves the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria. The district court holds that GTB v. U.S. Att’y is the “leading case” in the area! An excerpt:
The court agrees with Defendants that the County relies on too restrictive an interpretation of the IGRA in support of its contention that the Chico Parcel cannot qualify as a “restoration of lands.” The County contends that the term “restoration of lands” should be interpreted as including only a restored tribe’s former rancheria. But the IGRA does not define “restoration of lands”; therefore, courts have held it to be ambiguous and interpreted it broadly. See, e.g., City of Roseville v. Norton, 348 F.3d at 1020, 1026-27 (D.C.Cir.2003). If a broad interpretation is permissible, it certainly is in order here considering that the Tribe’s former rancheria, the Chico Rancheria, is no longer available for restoration because the City of Chico and the University have subsumed it. Accordingly, the Tribe sought to acquire lands as near as possible to its former Rancheria and, according to the OGC and agencies, within its original ancestral homeland, the Chico Parcel. Applying the Grand Traverse II factors and City of Roseville in light of the administrative record, the agency decisions must stand because they considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the administrative record and their conclusions. See Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 518 F.3d at 919.
The materials:
Flandreau v. South Dakota IGRA Case
Here are the materials in Flandreau Sioux v. South Dakota, out of the District of South Dakota.
flandreau-v-south-dakota-dct-order
south-dakota-motion-to-dismiss
Here is the tribe’s claim:
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Sues National Labor Relations Board
VERY interesting case.The Little River Band created its own labor relations code. At least one union agreed to forego the National Labor Relations Act in favor of the tribal law, but the Teamsters — perhaps the definition of a dying union that won’t go away without bringing down everyone around it — filed a charge with the NLRB.
Even more interesting, the Interior Solicitor opined that the NLRA does not apply to this tribe, and requested that the NLRB back down. Of course the Board refused. And so we have this case in the Western District of Michigan.
Here are the relevant materials:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.