Indian gaming – Page 7

Guest Post: Bill Rastetter on Judge Enslen

February 25, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

From long-time Grand Traverse Band counsel Bill Rastetter on the passing of Judge Enslen:

Writing this helps me to reflect upon not just Richard Enslen but also the two other Western District judges appointed by Jimmy Carter — all of whom made major rulings for Grand Traverse Band. (There’s a story there, if I ever could find the time; I’d start the story by talking with Dean Robb who was in the group of lawyers picked by the two Democratic Senators who came up with a list of possible nominees, including “progressives” who never would be considered in the present climate.) Those three were Richard Enslen, Douglas Hillman, and Benjamin Gibson. In retrospect, each individual evidenced concern for the plight of the less advantaged, the powerless within our society; and GTB’s victories might not have occurred if they had not been on the bench.

Gibson left Michigan long before retirement age, but not before he granted GTB its first victory in the modern (restored) era: Leelanau Indians, Inc. and Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (W.D. Mich. File No. G 80-526): 502 F.Supp. 741 (W.D. Mich. 1980).

Hillman? Well, there’s the major case [Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan, et al. (W.D. Mich. File No. 1:96-CV-466): 198 F.Supp.2d 920 (W.D. Mich. 2002), and 46 F.Supp.2d 689 (W.D. Mich. 1999), aff’d. 369 F.3d 960 (6th Cir. 2004)] which easily could have been resolved differently if another judge had been assigned that case.*

And Enslen. Even before the “treaty-fishing” cases, he granted the judgment declaring that GTB controlled the Peshawbestown lands. [Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. Leelanau County and Leelanau Indians, Inc. (W.D. Mich. File No. G 83-834)] Attached is his unpublished opinion; it’s the only time my proposed findings and conclusions have been adopted verbatim (without even being retyped). And he was assigned the GTB v. BIA case [Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, et al. (W.D. Mich. File No. G 85-382)], by which we (with his help/not so subtle messages to DOJ that he’d grant preliminary injunction for us if …) held them (the Reagan administration DOI political operatives) at bay until Buddy Raphael negotiated the “compromise” membership provisions. Both the 1985 and 2000 consent decrees were the result of his commitment to ADR (and at various times he forcefully let lawyers for state/”sports” groups know that they really didn’t want to give him a chance to rule for the Tribes); likewise, he allowed the Tribes plenty of maneuvering room leading up to the 2007 “inland” consent decree. Also his July 15, 1986 opinion/order in which he fashioned a remedy in GTB’s favor when the other COTFMA Tribes (BMIC & SSM) decided they could distribute 1985 CD funds by majority vote (subsequently there have been equal 1/3 and then 1/5 distributions of appropriated funds above each Tribe’s base). Finally, of course, is GTB’s “access” case now in the textbooks: Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. Director, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, et al. (W.D. Mich. File No. 1:94-CV-707): 971 F.Supp. 282 (1995), aff’d. 141 F.3d 635 (6th Cir. 1998), cert. denied 454 U.S. 1124, 102 S.Ct. 971 (1998).

____________________

* Here is an article that appeared later in the New Yorker, written by his niece about his mother. I was struck by the passage on the last page. Here was a man who rose to the top of a prestigious G.R. law firm, probably relatively conservative albeit a Democrat in conservative G.R. and (I think) a labor lawyer, but I’m not aware of any indication that he was champion of the downtrodden. Perhaps his mother instilled a sense of (in)justice, and when the opportunity presented itself he saved the day for the Indian Tribes. [United States v. Bay Mills Indian Community, et al. (W.D. Mich. File No. M 85-335): 692 F. Supp. 777 (W.D. Mich. 1988), vacated 727 F. Supp. 1110 (W.D. Mich. 1989)] GTB gets no credit for Judge Hillman’s decision not to enjoin the Tribes’ casino gaming, yet it was our separate brief (and affidavits of Buddy Raphael and Barry Burtt) that argued Rule 65 equitable considerations weighed against the injunction requested by DOJ.

TalkPoverty: “Of Stereotypes and Slack Reporting Standards: The Economist’s Claim that Native American Gaming Leads to ‘Sloth'”

January 21, 2015January 21, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

An excerpt:

But an article in this week’s The Economist is a reminder that we haven’t put the bad old days of racially distorted coverage of poverty beyond us. The article claims “cash from casinos makes Native Americans poorer.” According to the author, a particular problem is that tribes distribute part of the revenues directly to members—typically known as “per capita payments”—which encourages “sloth.” The article is accompanied by a photograph of an American Indian man in front of a slot machine, a grin on his face and his arm pumped in the air.

Given research like Gilens’ and the long history of stereotyping American Indians as lazy, The Economist should have been particularly careful to ensure that it had solid evidence to back up its claim. In lieu of such evidence, The Economist relied on a few anecdotes and a single article by a private attorney published in a student-run law review.

We took a closer look at the law review article that The Economist relied on and were not impressed. It purportedly shows that poverty was more likely to increase in certain Pacific Northwest tribes that distributed part of their gambling revenues to members than in those that did not. But there were only seven tribes (out of a total of 17 that the article focused on) that did not distribute gaming revenues directly to members. The total reported decline in poverty among these seven tribes amounted to only 364 people. The study contained no controls for any of the many factors that affect poverty rates, nor did it take into account size differences in the tribes, differences in the size and structure of the per capita payments, or other relevant factors. In short, the study is absolutely useless in terms of providing meaningful evidence to supportThe Economist’s claim.

Who Won American Indian Law and Policy, 2014, Second Round, Bracket 2 of 4

January 8, 2015January 7, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Now we move on to the Category 2 quarterfinals.

#1 Indian Child Welfare Act v. #9 Indian country voting rights

The litigation and public policy juggernaut that is ICWA defeated federal Indian preemption(the previous generation’s juggernaut) with 64 percent of the vote. Indian country voting rights prevailed over Rule 19 with 62 percent of the vote. Where my Rule 19 peeps?

This one is an old-fashioned clash of civil rights.

#4 Indian gaming v. #5 Intra-tribal disputes

Indian gaming beat out internet gaming, barely, with only 90 percent of the vote. In a battle of bad news, intra-tribal disputes knocked out human trafficking with 2/3 of the vote.

Great match-up here. Can we have one without the other? Well, looking back at the ICRA cases of the 1970s, I’d say we don’t need much to generate intra-tribal disputes, heh heh.

#2 Tribal sovereign immunity v. #7 American Indian education

Sovereign immunity beat out alternative energy with 92 percent of the vote. Did it use a sword or a shield? Education, we all need, won with 63 percent; climate change, we don’t need it, was a no-show.

Which came first, immunity or the knowledge that sovereigns are immune? Bill Wood knows, I bet.

#3 VAWA v. #6 Tribal court exhaustion

VAWA took three-quarters of the vote from criminal sentencing. Can’t sentence without convicting first, right?Tribal court exhaustion won almost as easily, with 72 percent of the vote over the new general welfare legislation. Ironically, tribal court exhaustion is all about adjudicating even without jurisdiction. Now I’m confused.

Who Won Indian Law and Policy in 2014? First Round Bracket — 3 of 8

January 6, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Now we move to category 2 (sounds like a hurricane) — Doctrines, Laws, and Issues (aka, grabag or miscellaneous). The first four contests there….

# 1 Indian Child Welfare Act

It’s been a big year for ICWA a year after Baby Girl (we miss you so much). The Attorney General announced the Department of Justice’s commitment to the statute, the South Dakota class action filed by the Oglala Sioux Tribe is currently pending after much drama about whether Judge Davis was refusing to disclose evidence, and DOJ intervened as an amicus in an important Alaska case (as well as the South Dakota matter). Alaska will now give full faith and credit to Alaska tribal courts on ICWA matters.

The Virginia SCT issued a split opinion on what parts of state law on best interests are trumped by ICWA here, and the Kentucky Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment the existing Indian family exception (not good, Kentucky). Montana’s Supreme Court issued a few troubling opinions expressing an infatuation with the Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl decision.

State courts from around the country published opinions on a wide variety of ICWA subjects: tribal court transfer (Nebraska — that was a good one), father’s rights in contested adoption (Alaska), qualified expert witnesses (Arizona, Alaska), active efforts (Nebraska, Montana), termination of parental rights (Texas), placement preferences (California, and again), truancy (Nebraska), application (Oregon, North Dakota), and notice, notice, notice (Kansas COA, California –three times here, North Carolina COA, Michigan COA, California COA again, Nebraska COA, Michigan COA again

Important-ish unpublished opinions involved ineffective assistance of counsel (Michigan), active efforts (Michigan), burden of proof (Michigan), placement preferences (California), customary adoption (California), and … you guessed it … notice (Michigan COA, California COA, another Michigan COA, and yet another)

You might see a lot of Michigan here (here’s another), and that’s thanks to MIFPA.

#16 Federal Indian law preemption

The Chehalis/Great Wolf Lodge matter from 2013 helped bring federal Indian law preemption back from the dead. The State of Washington was still feeling the consequences this year. The real impact may be in the BIA leasing regulations.

# 8 Rule 19

My favorite FRCP. Lots of Rule 19 action again this year, including a close call at the Supreme Court, which denied cert in the Buena Vista matter. Other cases involved Jamul Indian Village, payday lending cases, and Skokomish.

# 9 Indian country voting rights

Lots of pre-election voting rights activity in South Dakota, and a big win in a voting rights trial in Alaska. And another in Montana.

# 4 Indian gaming

Billions a year for tribal communities. Relentless litigation. Enough said.

# 13 Internet gaming

So far, pretty much nothing for tribal communities.

# 5 Intra-tribal disputes

This is the bad news part of the game.

Chukchansi. Timbisha-Shoshone. Caddo. Paskenta. Cayuga. Meherrin. Oglala Sioux. Pala Band. Saginaw Chippewa. Nooksack. Shingle Springs.