Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish

Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Suit in Patchak v. Zinke

Kate Fort2 Comments

Opinion here.

THOMAS, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which BREYER, ALITO, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an
opinion concurring in the judgment. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.

***

Petitioner, David Patchak, sued the Secretary of the
Interior for taking land into trust on behalf of an Indian
Tribe. While his suit was pending in the District Court,
Congress enacted the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation
Act (Gun Lake Act or Act), Pub. L. 113–179, 128 Stat.
1913, which provides that suits relating to the land “shall
not be filed or maintained in a Federal court and shall be
promptly dismissed.” Patchak contends that, in enacting
this statute, Congress impermissibly infringed the judicial
power that Article III of the Constitution vests exclusively
in the Judicial Branch. Because we disagree, we affirm
the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit.

Previous posts here.

MichGO v. Kempthorne Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is is: michgo-cert-pet-10-23-08

The questions presented are two-fold. First, the petitioners raise the nondelegation doctrine argument that caused Judge Rogers Brown in the D.C. Circuit to dissent below. And second, the petitioners make the same argument about recently recognized tribes that the Supreme Court will decide in Carcieri v. Kempthorne.

See our earlier posts here and here and here and here and a link to an Indian Country Today article about MichGO.

The interesting question here will be whether the government will file a response at all, given that there’s no circuit split (by MichGO’s admission), that the SCT already denied cert on the first issue in the Carcieri litigation, and that the second issue will be decided by Carcieri.

News Coverage of MichGo v. Kempthorne Case: Cert Petition Planned

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

I spoke to the author of this news article yesterday. He quotes me as making yet another prediction on whether the Court will grant cert as being “zero,” but what I thought I said was that MichGo’s chances of getting a stay is close to zero. I did say that I think a plausible Section 5 challenge will have to come from a different fact pattern, such as an off-reservation fee to trust decision, assuming there will ever be any again. Or a decision involving a wealthy gaming tribe like Oneida or Mashantucket Pequot.

Of note, the reporter told me that the MichGo attorney thought that the Carcieri case was a good sign for MichGo, in part because so many states signed on to an amicus brief supporting the cert petition. He thinks those states will support MichGo’s petition, too. But I wonder. States like Michigan and California are actually banking on the revenues from new Indian gaming operations in order to help balance their budgets. I don’t think these states would sign on, or else they’d be hurting themselves.

From Indianz:

An Indian law professor says there’s “zero” chance the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a land-into-trust case involving the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan. Matthew L.M. Fletcher, an assistant professor of law and director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center at Michigan State University, said the court, at some point, will hear a challenge to the Indian Reorganization Act. The 1934 law authorized the land-into-trust process and opponents say it is unconstitutional. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and ruled that the Bureau of Indian Affairs can acquire 147 acres for the tribe. A casino and other development are planned at the site. One judge, however, agreed that Section 5 of the IRA is unconstitutional. A group called Michigan Gambling Opposition hopes to convince the Supreme Court that the law is too broad. But Fletcher says the case is bogged down by other details to make it appeal-worthy. “I don’t think there’s any chance,” he told The Grand Rapids Press. “I really think the odds are close to zero that the Supreme Court would hear it.”

Get the Story:
Foes of Gun Lake Casino cling to slim legal hope (The Grand Rapids Press 5/2)
Gun Lake casino opponents down to last try (The Muskegon Chronicle 5/2)

Gun Lake Band Compact as Model for Future Michigan Compacts

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From Mlive:

The Gun Lake Tribe’s compact may be a model for agreements to be renegotiated in the next four to five years, according to James Hill, professor at Central Michigan University.

The compact is different from earlier agreements in three major ways. The tribe agreed to share revenue on an increasing scale, beginning with eight percent and rising to 12 percent of slot machine revenues, calculated on gross revenues. As the tribe makes more, it pays the state a higher percentage.

That might be the wave of the future, Hill said.

Another difference is the size of the exclusivity zone. instead of the whole state, the Gun Lake Tribe agreed to nine counties surrounding its Wayland casino.

Continue reading →

Gun Lake Casino Oral Argument Report

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

From the Kalamazoo Gazette: “Both sides said they were optimistic after arguments were presented Friday before the U.S. Court of Appeals over the future of a proposed Indian casino in Wayland Township.James Nye, a spokesman for the Gun Lake Tribe of Potawatomi Indians, said the group is prepared to begin casino construction before year’s end if the three-judge panel ejects a challenge by Michigan Gambling Opposition, or MichGO.”

MichGO v. Kempthorne Materials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

This case involves a challenge to the Secretary of Interior’s decision to take land into trust for gaming purposes benefiting the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (a/k/a Gun Lake Band).

Here is a recent news article noting that the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in this case this morning.

Here is Gun Lake’s appellate brief [it is very large, 103 pages].