Is here — gun-lake-band-cert-opposition
MichGO’s cert petition is here, as are links to the lower court materials.
MichGo v. Kempthorne
Supreme Court Declines to Lift Gun Lake Stay
From TV:
ALLEGAN COUNTY, Mich. (NEWSCHANNEL 3) – The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has dealt a blow to the West Michigan tribe trying to build a casino near Wayland.
Justice John Roberts has denied the tribe’s request to vacate a stay issued by a Washington DC circuit court. That court said that the tribe would have to wait until after the Supreme Court hears the latest challenge from the anti-gambling group MichGO.
Many speculate that Roberts’ decision is an indication that the court will hear that challenge, but that may not happen until sometime in 2009. So, for now, the Gun Lake Tribe has to wait and cannot start construction on the casino in Allegan County.
“Many speculate?” Since there has not even been a cert petition filed yet, I don’t see any reason to speculate on anything yet.
MichGO v. Kempthorne — Stay Issued
From the AP:
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court has issued a stay preventing a proposed tribal casino in Allegan County from moving forward.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order Friday pending a potential review from the U.S. Supreme Court. Opponents of the casino have asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.
The Gun Lake tribe wants to build a $200 million casino in Allegan County’s Wayland Township. A group called Michigan Gambling Opposition has spent years trying to stop the casino from being built.
The appeals court sided with the tribe earlier this year, upholding a decision by the federal government to set aside 147 acres of land where the casino would be built near Grand Rapids.
ICT on MichGO’s Ongoing Legal Wrangling
From ICT:
WAYLAND COUNTY, Mich. – In an effort to take advantage of every possible opportunity to delay the Gun Lake Tribe’s casino, the anti-Indian casino group Michigan Gambling Opposition – MichGO – has asked a court to stop all further action while the group files a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
MichGO’s latest tactic followed a July 25 ruling by the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denying the group’s request for a full panel, or en banc, rehearing of the court’s 2 – 1 decision in April upholding a district court decision to allow the Interior Department to take 147 acres of land into trust for the tribe’s proposed $200 million casino.
D.C. Circuit Denies Petition for Rehearing in MichGo v. Kempthorne
Here is the order — michgo-rehearing-denial
Three judges (Sentelle, Griffith, and Rogers) voted to rehear the case en banc, three short of the necessary votes. Of course, that semi-near miss gives the attorneys for MichGO fodder for making noise about a cert petition (see news report here).
I really have to think that this case is getting so much attention — not because of the merits of the case — but because these same lawyers have been working on three cases so far (TOMAC, CETAC, and now MichGO) and this is finally the end. It bears repeating that these three cases were all carbon-copy cases, with little to differentiate them at all. They have almost no merit whatsoever, and even the D.C. Circuit all but labeled them frivolous in the CETAC opinion. The Gun Lake case is no different than the previous cases, except it is the last one.
En Banc Petition in MichGO v. Kempthorne
We don’t have the petition yet, but here’s the D.C. Circuit clerk’s order and the article from ICT:
WASHINGTON – In what will likely be the last of its many legal challenges, an anti-Indian casino group has asked a federal appeals court to determine if a law that has been restoring swindled and expropriated indigenous land to Indians for almost 75 years is constitutional.
Michigan Gambling Opposition, or MichGO, petitioned the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia May 10 for an en banc court rehearing of its 2 – 1 panel decision to allow the Interior Department to take 147 acres of land into trust for the Gun Lake Tribe’s proposed casino.
MichGO wants the full nine-judge court to determine if the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 violates the nondelegation doctrine by unconstitutionally allowing the Interior secretary to acquire or take into trust land for Indians.
Commentary on the MichGO En Banc and Cert Petitions
MichGo’s attorney asserts a plan to file a cert petition (see below the fold for the news article), and even boasts that he has three votes for cert already — Scalia and Thomas because they dissented in the South Dakota case in 1996, and Roberts because he represented a party making a nondelegation claim to 25 U.S.C. sec. 465 in 1999/2000.
This is spurious, given very recent events.
The Department of Interior just issued nearly-final IGRA Section 20 [25 U.S.C. 2719] regulations. These were the regulations I was talking about in my ICT editorial (not knowing they were about to be finalized). The very existence of these regulations severely blunts Judge Brown’s dissent in the D.C. Circuit case. Here, the Secretary is finally agreeing to formalize restrictions on his discretion contained in section 5 of the IRA [25 U.S.C. 465] in the context of Section 20 trust acquisitions.
One could make a plausible claim that, to the extent the SCT would be persuaded by a solitary dissent in a very minor case (nationally), it is now all but a dead letter.
What the D.C. Circuit should do is amend its decision to reflect the existence of the new regs, adding another nail to the coffin of the Section 5 nondelegation argument.
Finally, as MichGO’s attorney should know, one solitary dissent does not a circuit split make.
News Coverage of MichGo v. Kempthorne Case: Cert Petition Planned
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)
Analysis of Judge Rogers’ Dissent in MichGo v. Kempthorne
Yesterday’s per curiam opinion in MichGo v. Kempthorne, while very, very important to the Gun Lake Band and other Michigan tribes, did not break any new ground. It was the third time in recent years that citizens groups challenged the Secretary of Interior’s decision to take land into trust for gaming purposes for the three southwest Michigan Potawatomi tribes (the other two were TOMAC v. Norton and CETAC v. Kempthorne). Each of the challenges raised NEPA and constitutional claims of very similar character. Each time it was relatively easy for the D.C. Circuit to dispose of these arguments, which some argued bordered on frivolous.
But there is a strong threat to the future of tribal property contained in these cases.
The constitutional challenge is that Section 5 of the IRA (25 U.S.C. 465) is an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional power to the Secretary of Interior. Section 5 allows the Secretary, at his discretion, to acquire land in trust for Indians and Indian tribes. If this discretion is absolute, then it is a violation of the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution. But until yesterday, the constitutional challenge did not garner a single vote in any of the three Potawatomi cases. In fact, though this constitutional challenge has been raised by states and localities repeatedly since the early 1980s, it has not garnered a single vote from a federal judge since 1996, when Justice Scalia dissented from a GVR in United States v. South Dakota, 519 U.S. 919 (1996). The Supreme Court recently granted cert. in Carcieri v. Kempthorne, another of these challenges, but declined to hear the constitutional challenge.
Turtle Talk 