indian gaming regulatory act

Second Circuit Rules in Favor of Seneca Nation in Gaming Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Chaudhuri:

CACGEC Opinion

The court’s syllabus:

The plaintiffs, organizations and individuals who oppose the operation of a casino on land owned by the Seneca Nation of Indians in Buffalo, New York, filed an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York against the National Indian Gaming Commission, its Chairman, the Department of the Interior, and the Secretary of the Interior, arguing that the National Indian Gaming Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously and abused its discretion in approving an ordinance that permitted the Seneca Nation to operate a class III gaming facility in Buffalo. The district court (Skretny, J.) dismissed the action, and the plaintiffs appealed. We hold that the Seneca Nation’s lands in Buffalo are gaming‐eligible under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721, as “Indian lands” under the Seneca Nation’s jurisdiction and that IGRA Section 20’s prohibition of gaming on trust lands acquired after IGRA’s enactment, 25 U.S.C. § 2719(a), does not apply. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

Briefs here.

Lower court materials here.

Navajo Nation Sues to Stop State Court Jurisdiction over Personal Injury Lawsuits Arising at Navajo Casinos

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. Marsh (D. N.M.):

1 Complaint

Edit: Amended Complaint

New Scholarship on the Economic Impact of IGRA

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Randall K. Q. Akee, Katherine A. Spilde, and Jonathan B. Taylor have published “The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and Its Effects on American Indian Economic Development” in the Journal of Economic Perspectives.

Here is the abstract:

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), passed by the US Congress in 1988, was a watershed in the history of policymaking directed toward reservation-resident American Indians. IGRA set the stage for tribal government-owned gaming facilities. It also shaped how this new industry would develop and how tribal governments would invest gaming revenues. Since then, Indian gaming has approached commercial, state-licensed gaming in total revenues. Gaming operations have had a far-reaching and transformative effect on American Indian reservations and their economies. Specifically, Indian gaming has allowed marked improvements in several important dimensions of reservation life. For the first time, some tribal governments have moved to fiscal independence. Native nations have invested gaming revenues in their economies and societies, often with dramatic effect.

PDF.

Another Update in Cosentino v. Fuller Depublication Request

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Defendants’ Request for Depublication

Oppo to Viejas Band’s Depub Request

Opposition to Request of Defendants to Depublish

Opposition to Request of Group of 13

Prior depublication-related posts here and here.

Cal. COA opinion here.

Additional Request to Depublish Cosentino v. Fuller

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here (from the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians):

Request for Depublication 07 14 15

Prior request for depublication here.

California Tribes Seeking Depublication of Cosentino v. Fuller

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here is the request to the California Supreme Court for depublication of Cosentino v. Fuller (Cal. Ct. App.) submitted by thirteen California Indian tribes:

Cosentino Request for Depublication – File Endorsed

Here’s an excerpt:

Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff’s suit rests entirely on the quintessentially sovereign action of the Pechanga Gaming Commission: revocation of Plaintiff’s gaming license.  Opinion, pp. 6-7.  That action cannot be effected by Gaming Commissioners in their personal capacity — only a properly constituted Gaming Commission can revoke a gaming license.  Indeed, Congress has recognized that regulation of gaming on tribal lands is central to tribal self-governance.  25 U.S.C. § 2701. 

Even though it was “the official action of the [Tribe], following [Defendants’] votes, that caused [Plaintiff]’s alleged injury” (Imperial Granite, 940 F.2d at 1271), the Opinion appears to condition an officer’s immunity on the additional showing that the sovereign’s action fell within its authority and was benignly motivated.  Specifically, the Opinion evaluated whether the Tribe’s Commission acted with a retaliatory motive and whether it “revoked [Plaintiff’s] license on a ground identified in the IGRA, the Tribal-State Compact, or the Pechanga Ordinance.”  Opinion, pp. 16-17.  But where, as here, a plaintiff challenges official action of the tribe, the “tribe’s immunity is not defeated by an allegation that it acted beyond its powers.”  Imperial Granite Co., 940 F.2d at 1271.  The Opinion invites courts and litigants to disregard this firmly established protection of sovereign action under the guise of a “masked official capacity suit[].”  Pistor, 2015 WL 3953448, at *5.

 

Here are previous TurtleTalk posts on this matter:

 https://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/california-appellate-court-issues-slightly-modified-opinion-in-cosentino-v-fuller/

 https://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/california-tribes-seek-rehearing-or-depublication-of-official-immunity-ruling/

 https://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/california-appeals-court-holds-pechanga-casino-officials-may-be-sued-in-employment-action/

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission v. State of California

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

California Opening Brief

Pauma Answer Brief

California Reply Brief

Pauma Band Reply

Oral argument audio and video.

Lower court materials here.

California Appellate Court Issues Slightly Modified Opinion in Cosentino v. Fuller

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Amended Opinion

Motion for rehearing here.

Panel materials here.

California Tribes Seek Rehearing Or Depublication Of Official Immunity Ruling

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials:

Petition for Rehearing

Cosentino – Application and Amicus Brief

Here’s a snippet from the petition:

The Opinion effectively holds that the Tribe’s Gaming Commission lacks authority to revoke a gaming license unless it cites to reasons for its actions that are expressly and affirmatively authorized to do so by codified law. That is incorrect as a matter of law. The Opinion also wrongly asserts that tribal sovereign immunity can be overcome by alleging that a tribal official acted in excess of his or her authority and that, upon such allegation, tribal official immunity is subject to an evidentiary weighing and balancing that involves shifting burdens of production and persuasion, similar to California’s law of qualified immunity. Tribal official immunity, however, is an absolute privilege, like the absolute immunity enjoyed by the Justices of this Court.

We previously covered this case here.

 

Government Moves to Dismiss Kansas Challenge to NIGC Indian Lands Opinion re: Quapaw

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials so far in State of Kansas v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. Kan.):

43 US Motion to Dismiss

Complaint here.