Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe – Page 3

Release: Mashpee Tribe’s Land Qualifies as Initial Reservation

February 12, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Interior Letter:

Release:

Interior Department Says Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe’s

Land will Qualify as an Initial Reservation

Land application demonstrates significant historic ties to Taunton area

MASHPEE, MA – The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe has received a positive preliminary advisory opinion from the Department of the Interior indicating that the Tribe’s lands in Taunton and Mashpee qualify as an initial reservation once the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe’s land into trust process is completed with a positive Record of Decision. This special status means that the Tribe will be able to conduct Class II and Class III gaming on the land under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Chairman Cedric Cromwell said this news “is another huge step forward toward the development of a first class destination resort casino in Taunton. We look forward to creating thousands of jobs and widespread economic opportunities for our Tribe, the people of Taunton and the entire Southeastern Massachusetts region.”

The news was presented to Chairman Cromwell in a letter from Assistant Secretary of the Department of the Interior for Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn. He informed the tribe that an analysis completed by the Office of Indian Gaming finds that the Tribe’s land in trust application qualifies to be processed under the initial reservation exception.

The initial reservation exception is found in Section 20 of the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act. It is one of the few exceptions to the prohibition of gaming on lands taken into trust after October 17, 1988. The provision is expressly intended for newly recognized Indian tribes, such as the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, that do not have an established reservation. The determination is based, in part, on an analysis of the tribe’s historic ties to the area identified in the land in trust application that is currently under review by the federal government.

Chairman Cromwell praised the speedy review process. “On behalf of our tribe, I want to express my deepest gratitude to President Obama, Secretary Washburn, the Interior Department, and the many dedicated officials at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. They truly understand how important it is for our people to have land, to maintain our history, our language and our culture. This will enable us to fully operate as a sovereign Tribal government, to secure the resources necessary to support ourselves, and to provide services such as housing, health care and education to our people.”

In addition, Chairman Cromwell thanked those who have worked on the documentation of the Tribe’s historic ties. “Tribal members and our advisers worked tirelessly to document our historic ties to Mashpee, Taunton, and all our ancestral homeland encompassing present-day Southeastern Massachusetts and Eastern Rhode Island. Their efforts were conducted with professionalism, seriousness, and respect for our rich history.”

The Tribe’s application for land in trust includes land in Mashpee and Taunton, Massachusetts. The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe has proposed a destination resort casino in Taunton. The planning and design process for the proposed casino has moved at a very brisk pace. The Tribe has successfully acquired an option for land, negotiated an intergovernmental agreement with the City, won the support of the residents of Taunton in a referendum, and has progressed with state and federal environmental reviews.

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, with approximately 2,600 enrolled members, has called present-day southeastern Massachusetts home for over 12,000 years. The Tribe was acknowledged in 2007 as a federally recognized tribe. As a sovereign nation, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe works to provide housing, health care, education, cultural, and economic development services to its members throughout the region.

Interior Letter and Tribal Press Release to Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe re: Review of Gaming Compact Record

January 14, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Release Federal Govt Pledges Rapid Review of LIT

Interior Disapproves Mashpee Wampanoag Gaming Compact

October 15, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the disapproval letter:

Patrick 12 Oct 2012

We posted the compact here.

First Circuit Remands Equal Protection Challenge to Mass. Gaming Law; Remands for Trial on Merits (and Carcieri)

August 2, 2012August 2, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The opinion is here.

Excerpts:

Given this situation, the lack of clear answers on questions of both state and federal law, the shifting of the nature of the injury to KG, and the apparent attempt to allow some time for the IGRA process to work (including any Carcieri fix), we cannot say there was an abuse of discretion in the denial of preliminary injunctive relief. “An injunction is an exercise of a court’s equitable authority, to be ordered only after taking into account all of the circumstances that bear on the need for prospective relief.” Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803, 1816 (2010). “Equitable relief is not granted as a matter of course, and a court should be particularly cautious when contemplating relief that implicates public interests.” Id. (citations omitted).

And:

The district court’s dismissal of the complaint is another matter. We simply cannot say that KG’s equal protection claim as to § 91 fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or that the issuance of equitable relief may not be appropriate at some future date.
We also affirm the dismissal with prejudice of KG’s claims as to the $5 million appropriation, the advisory committee seat, and the preemption challenge to § 91. We dismiss KG’s state-law claims without prejudice. We remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Indian Gaming and Buying Local

July 30, 2012Matthew 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.