Here are the materials so far in Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. State of Wisconsin (W.D. Wisc.):
Does Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S.Ct. 2024 (2014), require the dismissal of a State’s suit to prevent tribal officers from conducting gaming that would be unlawful under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and a state-tribal compact when
• the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief has been brought against tribal officials – not the tribe;• the gaming will occur in Indian country, on the land of another tribe; and
• the state-tribal compact’s arbitration provision does not require arbitration before filing suit?
Lower court materials here.
Here is the opinion. The court’s summary:
The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the federal government insofar as it upheld the Secretary of the Interior’s denial of the application of Redding Rancheria (the Tribe) to operate multiple casinos on restored lands, and reversed in part and remanded to the agency for consideration of the Tribe’s proposal to close its existing Tribal gaming operation upon construction of a new facility.
The Secretary denied the Tribe’s request to take into trust a substantial parcel the Tribe recently acquired for the construction and operation of a new gambling casino. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act generally banned gaming on lands that tribes acquired after its enactment in 1988, but created an exception for tribes with restored lands. The agency denied the Tribe’s application because, at the time it was submitted, the Tribe was operating a modest casino on land it acquired earlier. The district court granted summary judgment to the government because the Tribe was seeking to operate multiple casinos, which the applicable regulations sought to prevent. While the application was pending, the Tribe advised the agency that it was willing to close down its original casino once the new one was in operation.
The panel held that the regulation at issue was reasonable, and the Secretary reasonably implemented the restored lands exception. The panel further held that the Indian canon (which provides that where a statute is unclear, it must be liberally interpreted in favor of Indians) did not apply in the circumstances of this case. The panel also held that the Secretary’s denial of the Tribe’s application was not inconsistent with prior agency practice, and was not arbitrary and capricious.
The panel held that the agency should have considered the Tribe’s alternative offer to move all gaming to the new casino, and vacated in part the district court’s summary
judgment with instructions to remand to the agency to address the issue.
Judge Callahan concurred in parts I, II, and III of the majority’s opinion; and agreed that the regulation at issue was reasonable, the Indian canon did not apply, and there was no unexplained change in agency policy. Judge Callahan dissented from part IV of the opinion because the Tribe did not fairly prompt the Secretary to consider its alleged offer to move its casino and did not ask the district court to consider the alleged offer to remove the casino. Judge Callahan would not reverse in part and remand for further consideration.
Here. Like its earlier decision, today’s amended opinion concludes that the district court erroneously granted the State’s request for a preliminary injunction and held that the State’s complaint, which alleged class III gaming activities on non-Indian lands, failed to state a claim under IGRA.
The Tenth Circuit also reiterated that arbitration provisions in the state’s gaming compact effectively barred Oklahoma from suing tribal officials in federal court for purported violations of the compact. The court remanded the matter to the Northern District of Oklahoma with instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction and to dismiss Oklahoma’s complaint with prejudice.
Also, the court denied the petition for en banc review.
Panel materials are here.