indian gaming regulatory act – Page 9

California Appeals Court Holds Pechanga Casino Officials May Be Sued in Employment Action

May 29, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Cosentino v. Fuller:

An excerpt:

For sovereign immunity to apply, the claims against tribal officials must be based on actions the officials took in their official capacity and within the scope of their official authority. An official’s actions that exceed the scope of his or her authority are not protected. Although the parties do not dispute that as members of the tribe’s gaming commission Defendants had the authority to revoke a gaming license if they received reliable information the licensee no longer satisfied the requirements for obtaining a license or had engaged in conduct that reflected poorly upon the tribe or its gaming activities, the record lacks evidence showing Defendants received any such information about Cosentino or an explanation of why they revoked his gaming license. Cosentino, however, presented evidence supporting his claim Defendants exceeded the scope of their authority by revoking his license without cause and in retaliation against him. Sovereign immunity prevents us from inquiring into the reliability of information Defendants may have relied upon in revoking Cosentino’s license or any other errors they may have made, but it does not prevent inquiry into whether Defendants exceeded their authority by using their official position to intentionally harm Cosentino.

Materials in a related Ninth Circuit matter are here.

Federal Court Rejects Gaming Bid of MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians

April 1, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in State of Alabama v. 50 Serialized JLM Games (S.D. Ala.):

8 Alabama Motion to Remand

10 MOWA Motion to Dismiss

23 Alabama Response to Motion to Dismiss

31 MOWA Amended Notice of Removal to Federal Court

32 Alabama Surreply re Motion to Remand

36 Magistrate Report

39 DCT Order

North Fork Rancheria Sues California Alleging Violation of IGRA Good Faith Negotiation Obligation

March 26, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the complaint in North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California v. State of California (E.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) requires states, upon request by an Indian tribe, to “negotiate with the Indian tribe in good faith to enter into” “a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of gaming activities” on the tribe’s “Indian lands.” 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(A). IGRA also confers jurisdiction on this Court over “any cause of action initiated by an Indian tribe arising from the failure of a State to enter into negotiations with the Indian tribe for the purpose of entering into a Tribal-State compact under paragraph (3) or to conduct such negotiations in good faith.” Id. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(i). This action is brought pursuant to § 2710(d)(7)(A)(i) and seeks a declaration that Defendant the State of California (“the State” or “California”) has failed to comply with § 2710(d)(3)(A)’s requirement that the State negotiate in good faith with Plaintiff North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California (“the Tribe”) to enter into an enforceable tribal-state gaming compact, and an order directing the State to conclude an enforceable compact with the Tribe within 60 days or submit to mediation, see id. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)-(iv).

Sault Tribe Motion to Dismiss Michigan Gaming Suit

March 23, 2015May 6, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the new materials in the case captioned State of Michigan v. Payment (W.D. Mich.):

2015-03-20 Brief in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

2015-03-20 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

71 Michigan Response to Motion to Dismiss

72 Sault Tribe Reply

The state’s amended complaint is here.

Kansas Sues NIGC over Quapaw Indian Lands Opinion

March 10, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in State of Kansas v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. Kan.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

In this action, the Plaintiffs challenge and seek relief from the November 21, 2014 determination of National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) officials that a 124 acre strip of land in Kansas acquired by the Quapaw Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma (Quapaw or the Tribe) and put into trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for non-gaming purposes qualifies for gaming under the “last recognized reservation exception” to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s (IGRA) general prohibition on gaming on land acquired after October 17, 1988. See 25 U.S.C. § 2719(a)(2)(B); 25 C.F.R. § 292.4(b)(2).

Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the November 21, 2014 determination because the strip of land was taken into trust by the Department of Interior for non-gaming purposes and because the NIGC incorrectly applied 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(2)(B), thereby depriving the State of Kansas of the governor’s statutory right to concur in and to veto gaming on lands acquired after October 17, 1988, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(A)

State of Michigan Sues Sault Tribe Officials–Amended Complaint with Exhibits

February 4, 2015Kate Fort3 Comments

Amended Complaint

2Exhibit A (Letter from DOI)

Exhibit B (letter from Gov. Snyder to Chairman Eitrem)

Exhibit C (Sault Tribe Submission for Mandatory Fee-to-Trust Acquisition)

Exhibit D (Same, for the Sibley Parcel)

Exhibit E (Sault Tribe approval of development agreement with Lansing, MI)

Exhibit F (Comprehensive Development Agreement between Sault Tribe and Lansing)

Previous coverage of the Lansing casino case here.

Forest County Potawatomi Complaint re: Denial of Class III Gaming Compact — And Commentary

January 22, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The Forest County Potawatomi Community has filed a complaint against the Department of the Interior over the disapproval of its gaming compact – the latest development in the Menominee Tribe’s efforts to develop a class III gaming facility in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Here are some initial thoughts about the case:

These are very difficult cases to win. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal agencies have broad discretion in making decisions and interpreting statutory law. The Department’s decision to disapprove the Forest County Potawatomi gaming compact strikes me as consistent with its approach in recent years to limit the scope of these types of agreements.
The Complaint alleges that the Department’s rejection of the compact “departed from long-established and consistent policies reflected in previous [compact] decisions…” However, the Department of the Interior has always expressed concerns over revenue sharing in gaming compacts. In the past 15 years, the Department has also warned tribes that gaming compacts are not an appropriate means to restrict the ability of other Indian tribes to engage in gaming under IGRA – including the Forest County Potawatomi Community. Finally, the Department of the Interior under the Obama Administration has rejected a number of gaming compacts for similar reasons.
The Complaint alleges that “Potawatomi has not received what it bargained for:…the 50-mile non-competition zone.” Later, it asserts that “[Potawatomi] has paid the State over $243 million” for that benefit. This sounds like Potawatomi intends the new compact to remedy the old compact’s supposed flaws, which is a tough sell considering the fact that the Forest County Potawatomi Community has enjoyed the exclusive right to operate a gaming facility in Milwaukee for more than two decades.
The Department’s decision to disapprove the Forest County Potawatomi gaming compact was based on its determination that the compact included terms that went far beyond what IGRA allows. The Complaint alleges that determination was wrong, and states, “IGRA expressly provides that a compact may include provisions that take into account the adverse economic impacts on existing gaming activities” and then cites 25 U.S.C. §§ 2710(d)(7)(A)(iii)(I) and 2710 (d)(3)(C)(vii). Nothing in either of those sections of IGRA “expressly” allows a compact to include terms that mitigate a tribal gaming facility for lost profits. The Department is going to get a lot of deference on its interpretation of those sections.
The Complaint alleges that the Department had “a ministerial duty to approve the [Potawatomi] Compact amendment” because it was the product of an earlier compact amendment that survived the Department’s review. This is, perhaps, the biggest stretch in the complaint. A court could see that argument as an effort to allow tribes and states to collude to avoid DOI review of gaming compact amendments.

Gaming compacts have become increasingly more complex, and the Department of the Interior has become much more active in reviewing those agreements. This will be a difficult case for Forest County Potawatomi to win, as I suspect the Court will defer to the Department’s expertise in this area. All in all, there are lot of interesting questions for the court to consider in this matter.

Here are related documents:

1-1 Exhibit A — Compact Amendment

1-2 Exhibit B — Disapproval Letter

Forest County Potawatomi FOIA Suit against Interior over Menominee Fee to Trust Materials

January 8, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Forest County Potawatomi Community v. Jewell (D. D.C.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

For over two years, Plaintiff Forest County Potawatomi Community (the “Community”) has attempted to obtain records from Defendants, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. §552 et seq., related to the Secretary of the Interior’s reconsideration of the Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin’s (“Menominee’s”) request to acquire land in Kenosha, Wisconsin, into trust for gaming purposes under Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (“IRA”), 25 U.S.C. §465, and a request for a Secretarial Determination under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §2719(b)(1)(A) (the “Kenosha Casino Application”). The Community sought the information as part of its effort to meaningfully consult with and provide comments to the Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs (the “Assistant Secretary”) before he made critical decisions on the Kenosha Casino Application. Defendants have improperly withheld the requested records and have repeatedly violated their clear statutory obligations under FOIA. The Community seeks, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that Defendants are in violation of FOIA for improperly withholding records and engaging in a pattern and practice of violating FOIA, a finding that the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) personnel acted arbitrarily and capriciously and in violation of law in withholding records, and an order requiring Defendants to immediately and fully comply with the FOIA requests set forth herein.