Indian gaming

Indian Gaming and Buying Local

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Mashpee Wampanoag gaming compact discussion (whether 21 percent is too high; whether Massachusetts gaming law is constitutionally valid) should, I think, take an additional factor into consideration. Massachusetts is, for lack of a better term, buying local. Massachusetts had no legal obligation to enter into a gaming compact with an Indian tribe. Leaving moral obligations aside, what did Massachusetts do? It bought local.

Compare the tribe to KG Urban, an equity development boutique whose address is Park Avenue, New York. I assuming without knowing for sure that profits from the Massachusetts casino they would propose would largely leave the state. Profits from a tribal casino would largely stay in the state. It is possible that KG Urban would pay more in taxes than a tribal casino would (this is usually the case in other states) but the large gaming corporations that run non-Indian gaming operations take their profits elsewhere (maybe where Mitt Romney puts his profits). I’d like to know if the increase in taxes on a non-Indian gaming operation offset the locality of Indian gaming profits, but I bet it’s on the side of tribal gaming. Going with a corporate gaming entity will generate those “lost revenues” state tax officials are always taking about more than tribal gaming, in other words. The state and tribe will be more significant commercial partners — both have the same interests at stake. Under our Morton v. Mancari/political status analysis of Massachusetts gaming law, local tribal control is a rational, political reason for sticking with tribal gaming (as opposed to just doing it because they like Indians, which trends toward a race-based reason).

For the tribe, this is significant as well. Massachusetts going with a tribal compact instead of a corporate (non-Indian) deal seems to be a meaningful concession, maybe on taxes, maybe on other things. It’s a tax-for-commercial partnership swap. Maybe that’s not what Congress meant in 1988, but it’s something that takes into consideration real-world economic interests.

Briefs in Shinnecock Second Circuit Gaming Case Now Available

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

We posted the opinion and lower court materials here.

And now the briefs:

Westwoods – Appellants

Westwoods – Appellees

Westwoods – Reply

Second Circuit Vacates Federal Court Injunction against Shinnecock Casino Construction in Southampton (Updated with Briefs)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion:

08-1194_complete_opn

It’s the Second Circuit, so there are no briefs (unless someone sends them along). Here are the briefs:

Shinnecock Brief

State and Town Brief

An excerpt:

The Shinnecock Indian Nation and its tribal officials (collectively, the “Shinnecock” or the “Tribe”) appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joseph F. Bianco, Judge). After a bench trial, the district court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the Tribe from developing a casino on a plot of land known as Westwoods without complying with the laws of New York State and the Town of Southampton. The Shinnecock object to a number of the district court’s factual and legal conclusions, including its findings: (1) that tribal sovereign immunity from suit does not bar this action; (2) that the Shinnecock’s aboriginal title to the land at Westwoods was extinguished in the seventeenth century; (3) that even if aboriginal title had not been extinguished, equitable principles would prevent the Shinnecock’s development of a casino in violation of state and local law; and (4) that the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) supplanted any federal common law right the Tribe may have had to operate the casino. They also argue that the Bureau of Indian Affairs’s recent recognition of the Shinnecock Indian Nation moots the injunction.

We conclude that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and thus do not reach the merits of this appeal.

Lower court materials are here and here.

Grand Ronde Carcieri Motion Opposing Cowlitz Trust Acquisition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Grand Ronde Brief

The parallel Clark County brief is here.

Clark County, Wash. Motion Arguing Carcieri in Challenge to Cowitz Trust Acquisition Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the motion:

Clark County Motion for Summary J

The complaint and other materials are here.

News Article on “The Sustainable Chumash”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. Amazing article.

Thanks again to Patrick O’Donnell.

New Research on Positive Health Effects of Indian Casino Gaming on Indian People

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Nope, gambling doesn’t make Indians healthier. Having a little change in your jeans does. We reported on a similar study limited to the EBCI here.

The study is The Income and Health Effects of Tribal Casino Gaming on American Indians, 49 Demography 499 (2012).

If you want a copy, send me an email.

Supplementary materials to the article are here:

Continue reading →

Cal. Appellate Court Remands Jamul Tribal Members’ Challenge to Tribal Gaming Operations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Jamulians against the Casino v. Iwasaki (Cal. App. 3rd Dist.):

Jamulians Against the Casino v Iwasaki

An excerpt:

Consistent with its litigation strategy in the trial court, the Tribe has declined to make a general appearance in this court as a respondent, but sought leave to appear as an amicus curiae (which we granted). Although the Tribe’s amicus brief makes colorable arguments in favor of its indispensible status, this is an issue on which the trial court must exercise its discretion in balancing several criteria in the first instance. We therefore will reverse the judgment sustaining the demurrer with directions to the trial court to address the merits of the issue on remand.

Federal Agent Affidavit in United Auburn Community Fraud Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

News coverage here, via Pechanga.

Alex Skibine on the Implications of Internet Gaming on Indian Country

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Alexander Tallchief Skibine has posted his testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Opinion on Indian Gaming: What Is at Stake for Tribes?. It is available on SSRN.