off-reservation gaming – Page 2

The 22-11 vote, which split members of both parties, will allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to build a new casino with 2,000 slot machines on a 300-acre parcel just north of Madera in the Central Valley that was once slated to be a NASCAR track.

The deal was made possible through a rare federal approval process that allowed the tribe to build on land it has just recently acquired. Federal law stipulates that typically casinos can be build only on lands recognized as belonging to tribes before 1988, the year the federal government officially sanctioned tribal gambling.

The exception made for North Fork angered other neighboring and large casino-owning tribes around the state who said the North Fork were “reservation shopping.” The new location’s proximity to a major state highway and the city of Madera also touched off concerns about the encroachment of Indian casinos into urban areas.

Article here.

Previous coverage here.

Federal Court Decides Cross-Motions for Summary J in Wyandotte Nation v. Salazar

April 11, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials:

DCT Order on Cross Motions

Wyandotte Motion for Summary J

Interior Opposition

Kansas Opposition

An excerpt:

Plaintiff Wyandotte Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe (“the Nation”), filed this lawsuit against Kenneth Salazar, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (“the Secretary”), seeking an order from this Court compelling the Secretary to accept title to certain land and hold it in trust for the Nation’s benefit, as specifically required by Public Law 98-602, 98 Stat. 3149 (1984) (“P.L. 98-602”), under both the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(a) and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The State of Kansas (“the State”) was permitted to intervene as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a).1 This matter is before the Court on the Nation’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 60) and the Secretary and State’s cross-motions for summary judgment (Docs. 66, 69). The Court heard oral arguments on March 14, 2013, at which time the Secretary was directed to supplement the Administrative Record and the matter was taken under advisement. For the reasons explained in detail below, the Court denies the Nation’s motion and grants in part and denies in part the Secretary and the State’s cross- motions, retaining jurisdiction over the case until the agency issues a final decision on the Nation’s pending land-into-trust application.

Prior posts on this case here, here, and here.

Michigan Files Amicus Brief in State of Oklahoma v. Hobia

February 11, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

State of Michigan Amicus Brief

The other opening briefs are here.

Opening Briefs in Broken Arrow Casino Appeal — UPDATED with Complete Briefing (3/4/13)

January 29, 2013March 4, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here are the Tenth Circuit briefs so far in State of Oklahoma v. Hobia:

Kialegee Tribal Town Brief

Brief Amicus Curiae State of NM (filed 1-25-13) (W1843673)

State of Michigan Amicus Brief

Filed Brief of the Appellee (1-25-13) (W1843503)

Kialegee Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Complaint Challening Trust Acquisition for North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians

December 28, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in Stand Up for California v. DOI (D. D.C.):

Stand Up for California Complaint

An excerpt:

This “reservation shopping” case involves a dispute over the Secretary of the United States Department of Interior’s decision to acquire 305.49 acres (the “Casino Parcel”) in trust on behalf of the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians (the “North Fork Tribe” or the “Tribe”) under 25 U.S.C. § 465 for the purpose of enabling the Tribe to develop and operate a mega-casino funded by Las Vegas-based Station Casinos, Inc. (“Station Casinos”) almost 40 miles from the Tribe’s reservation. The Tribe already has ancestral lands in trust on which gambling can occur, and therefore the Secretary’s decision has been highly controversial and widely opposed. As is explained in detail below, the decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and was not in accordance with the federal policy strongly favoring on-reservation gambling, and the limited exception for off-reservation Indian gambling. Indeed, the Casino Parcel was strategically chosen adjacent to State Route 99 to provide easy access to nearby metropolitan areas with large numbers of potential gamblers.

MLive on the Bay Mills Vanderbilt Casino Case & Proposed Lansing Casino

August 23, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here.

An excerpt:

Bay Mills has a reservation located on tribal land in the Upper Peninsula’s Chippewa County on the eastern end of Lake Superior.

In 2010, the tribe used earnings from a land settlement trust to purchase 40 acres of land in Vanderbilt, a tiny town just north of Gaylord that’s located more than 100 miles south of the tribe’s main reservation.

The Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act says that land acquired with funds from a land trust “shall be held as Indian lands are held.” So Bay Mills used that language as legal authority to open a small casino in November 2010 in Vanderbilt. Continue reading →