Years ago, Wisconsin sued the Stockbridge-Munsee Community over the site of its Class III gaming operation, alleging that the land upon which the casino was located was outside the reservation boundaries, or that the reservation had been disestablished. The case is in the Seventh Circuit now and briefing is underway:
1999-dct-opinion-wisconsin-v-stockbridge-munsee
2004-dct-opinion-wisconsin-v-stockbridge-munsee
In the Kickapoo Tribe’s petition for cert to the Supreme Court re: the Class III Procedures (i.e, the Seminole Tribe “fix”) that were invalidated by the Fifth Circuit, the United States (ostensibly on the same side as the Tribe) filed a brief opposing certiorari (here). The State of Texas had already declined to respond to the cert petition.
The government’s brief is an interesting read. First, the US says the Fifth Circuit was wrong on any number of points — namely, that the court incorrectly held that the case was ripe for decision (the procedures were not yet complete) and that the court incorrectly held that the Secretary was not authorized to issue the regulation in the first place. Second, the government says there is no reason to hear this case now, given that it would be a case of first impression for the Supreme Court (usually a death knell for cert petitions) and that the Fifth Circuit’s panel decision was split three ways.
If there was any doubt that the Kickapoo petition would be denied, this brief effectively dispels that doubt.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held the Department of the Interior’s decision to place land into trust for the benefit of the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians near Bradley, Michigan did not violate the National Environmental Protection Act nor did Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.
Other briefs are here.
The March/April 2008 issue of the Federal Lawyer featured several articles on Indian law.
Zeke Fletcher on the legacy of Martinez, Wheeler, and Oliphant: trappedinthespringof1978
Casey Douma on the Indian Civil Rights Act: 40thanniversaryoficra
Mike McBride and Susan Huntsman on tribal labor relations: organizedlaborstrategiesforindiangaming
Goodman and Maxfield on the NIGC’s gaming management contracting: isthatyourfinalanswergoodmanmaxfield
Matthew Fletcher on the Supreme Court and the rule of law: supremecourtandtheruleoflaw
From Mlive:
The Gun Lake Tribe’s compact may be a model for agreements to be renegotiated in the next four to five years, according to James Hill, professor at Central Michigan University.
The compact is different from earlier agreements in three major ways. The tribe agreed to share revenue on an increasing scale, beginning with eight percent and rising to 12 percent of slot machine revenues, calculated on gross revenues. As the tribe makes more, it pays the state a higher percentage.
That might be the wave of the future, Hill said.
Another difference is the size of the exclusivity zone. instead of the whole state, the Gun Lake Tribe agreed to nine counties surrounding its Wayland casino.
“Update on Proposed Class II Gaming Regulations,” DesRosiers, Knudson & McBride, INDIAN GAMING magazine 34-42 (April 2008)
From the Detroit Free Press:
WASHINGTON – The House Judiciary Committee is set to work on a couple of bills on Wednesday that would allow for two new Indian casinos in Michigan – even though another committee has already approved them.
It could set up an interesting jurisdictional question for the House.
A couple months ago, the Natural Resources Committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of the two pieces of legislation, which would authorize land swaps with two tribes, resulting in new casinos in Romulus and Port Huron. That vote was expected to send the bills to the House floor.
From The Hill:
Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) is clashing with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) over the thorny issue of Indian gambling, setting up a standoff between two of the oldest bulls in Congress.
Conyers has stepped into an Indian gambling dispute that is dividing the Michigan delegation and the Democratic Caucus. After teaming up with Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), the 22-term House veteran has used his position as chairman of the powerful Judiciary Committee to oppose two bills that would settle tribal land disputes and clear the way for new casinos to be built near both lawmakers’ Detroit-area districts.
Conyers argues that the bills would change the way casinos are approved by allowing Congress to get involved in land dispute claims that the U.S. Department of the Interior routinely determines. He also cites the concern that the casinos would be located more than 350 miles from the tribes’ reservations.
From CQ Politics:
Tribal casinos, which have bulked into a multibillion-dollar industry since Congress first gave them its blessing two decades ago, now possess all sorts of economic and political clout — but not enough, it seems, for them to go off the reservation.
American Indians marooned on reservations far from population centers have long pressed the Interior Department to grant them the authority to launch gambling operations closer to where the people willing to risk their money live — and rake in the sort of revenues that the more fortuitously situated tribes have enjoyed.
The federal district court granted the Rumsey Band’s motion to remand the claim back to state court after Howard Dickstein at al. removed the case to federal court. The ultimate claim against Dickstein et al. is that former attorneys and financial advisors engaged in self-dealing in regards to business deals involving the tribal gaming operation. This intermediate order remanding the case involved questions regarding whether Congress preempted the field with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.