The Native Nations Institute at the University of Arizona has just posted a new paper analyzing tribal per-caps.
from Arizona Native Net:
The paper examines policy considerations relevant to per capita distribution of tribal revenues. It offers Native nation leaders and citizens food for thought as they consider whether or not to issue per capita payments and, if they choose to do so, how to structure the distribution of funds and make that distribution serve tribal goals.
Kevin Washburn has posted on SSRN his testimony for tomorrow’s hearing before the House Resources Committee on the new guidance for the acquisition of off-reservation trust lands for gaming purposes.
St. Croix Band of Chippewa lost a motion for a preliminary injunction in their attempt to avoid the new off-reservation gaming rules [see here for Bryan Newland’s analysis of the new rules].
Here are the materials:
This case involves a tortious interference with contract claim by Rinaldo that Nevada Gold involving the Timbisha Shoshone Indian Tribe. The California Court of Appeals (5th Dist.) (unpublished) affirmed the trial court decision finding no underlying contract between Rinaldo and Timbisha with which to tortiously interfere.
Here is the opinion.
From Indianz:
The city council in Muskegon, Michigan, voted 5-2 to approve an agreement with the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa for an off-reservation casino.
The deal requires the tribe to pay $2 million a year for municipal services plus 4 percent of net gaming revenues and other service fees. The total annual payment is estimated at $4.5 million. The agreement is non-binding and non-exclusionary. The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians is also proposing an off-reservation casino in the city.
From the Muskegon Chronicle:
A downtown Muskegon casino proposed by the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians would be nearly twice the size of the band’s Little River Casino in Manistee.
It would also appeal to a different market, tribal leaders told members of the Muskegon City Commission Monday night — an urban market that would pull in people from around Muskegon, Grand Rapids and as far east as Lansing, as opposed to the destination-resort setting of the Manistee gaming facility.
Here is a short article on “Reservation Shopping,” including a short discussion on the new rules from Interior on taking land into trust for gaming purposes — Reservation Shopping
New York successfully defended a judgment in its favor from last November (noted here) from a Rule 59 motion to modify the judgment. Also, the district court issued a permanent injunction against the Shinnecock Indian Nation, preventing them from opening a gaming operation under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Here are the materials:
From Indianz:
The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians is entering the off-reservation casino game in Muskegon, Michigan.
The tribe plans to make a presentation to the city commission on Monday. Ogema Larry Romanelli says the tribe is interested in a casino in Muskegon — about 80 miles from tribal headquarters in Manistee. The Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians recently proposed an off-reservation casino in Muskegon. The tribe’s headquarters are about 500 miles away. The Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians, an unrecognized tribe, is also interested in a casino in the city.
Get the Story:
Muskegon officials to hear another casino pitch (The Muskegon Chronicle 2/8)
As Trent noted, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held 7-2 that dram shop actions filed against tribal casino operations are not barred by tribal sovereign immunity in Bittle v. Bahe. This decision conflicts with decisions of other state courts, including those of Arizona (Filer v. Tohono O’odham Nation), Texas (Holguin v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo), and Washington (Foxworthy v. Puyallup). And, as we know by reading Rule 10 of the United States Supreme Court rules, the Supreme Court is predisposed toward hearing cases in which there is a split of lower court authority involving an important federal question.
This may be a troubling development, though perhaps not as a result of this case. If the tribe refuses to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari, then this case will be over. Moreover, even if the tribe petitions, the Court might let this one go because of lower court outcome isn’t troublesome to the Court.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.