Passamaquoddy Tribe

Wabanaki Nations Intervene to Defend Maine’s Internet Gaming Law

Matthew Campbell

On April 1, 2026, the four Wabanaki Nations — the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, the Mi’kmaq Nation, the Passamaquoddy Tribe, and the Penobscot Nation — represented by the Native American Rights Fund and co-counsel filed an unopposed motion to intervene in Oxford Casino Hotel, et al. v. Champion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. On April 2, 2026, the district court granted the Nations’ motion. The Nations’ intervention ensures their voices are represented in a lawsuit challenging Maine’s new internet gaming law, An Act to Create Economic Opportunity for the Wabanaki Nations Through Internet Gaming, a statute that is important to unique Tribal economic and sovereign interests.

Previous post on this matter is here.

The law, enacted earlier this year, establishes a regulatory framework allowing the Wabanaki Nations to seek licenses to operate internet gaming in Maine. The statute is designed to support Tribal self-determination and create economic opportunities that strengthen the Wabanaki governments and their ability to provide for their communities. The Nations are the direct beneficiaries of the law and have significant sovereign, economic, and constitutional interests at stake in the litigation.

The lawsuit, brought by Oxford Casino Hotel and others, seeks to invalidate the law on constitutional grounds. By granting the Wabanaki Nations’ motion to intervene, the court has allowed the Nations  to participate as party defendants to defend the law and protect their unique sovereign right as governments to pursue economic development in order to fund essential government programs, services and infrastructure.

Leaders of the Wabanaki Nations emphasized the importance of intervening to safeguard economic sovereignty and shared prosperity across Maine.

Chief Francis, Penobscot Nation: “Our intervention in Oxford v. Champion is about the future — for our people and for all of rural Maine. This law gives the Penobscot Nation a fair chance to build jobs, fund essential services, and partner across communities to heal long-standing economic disparities, while recognizing our unique politic status as a Tribal Nation. We look forward to the opportunity to defend this law and our right to economic self-determination.”

Chief Sabattis, Houlton Band of Maliseet: “This law is crucial to advancing the Houlton Band’s efforts to develop independent, long-term revenue sources that are not dependent on federal funding and will enable us to support and expand governmental services for Maliseet families and other community members. It is a result of collaboration between the Wabanaki Nations and state government under our unique jurisdictional relationship to create opportunities that will enable the Nations to share in the economic benefits of gaming.”

Chief McCormack, Mi’kmaq Nation: “Rural Maine and our Nations are interconnected. When Tribal economies grow, local businesses, workers, and towns grow too. The Mi’kmaq Nation is proud to stand in court with the other Wabanaki Nations to defend a law that makes that shared prosperity possible.”

Chief Bassett, Passamaquoddy Tribe (Pleasant Point): “The Wabanaki Nations face steeper barriers to prosperity than other Tribes around the country, and we have been historically blocked out of Maine’s casino gaming industry as our peers across Indian country rebuilt their economies and the economies around them using those same economic tools we were deprived of. Defending this law is defending our right to pursue self-determination. We are fighting for a brighter economic future for our future generations.”

Chief Nicholas, Passamaquoddy Tribe (Indian Township): “The Passamaquoddy Tribe has been steadfast in its support of economic sovereignty as its number one priority the past two years in the Maine legislature. We are ready to stand in court to defend a law we were proud to fight for over the past years in the state house. Maine’s new internet gaming law is intended to promote a better economic future for Wabanaki communities and for rural Maine. By protecting this law, we protect our future.”

Native American Rights Fund Staff Attorney Lenny Powell: “The Native American Rights Fund is proud to jointly represent the Wabanaki Nations in efforts to defend ‘An Act to Create Economic Opportunity for the Wabanaki Nations Through Internet Gaming.’ This attack represents an unfortunate effort to undermine Tribal-state partnerships. It seeks to undermine the legal basis for constructive government-to-government policy collaboration, despite decades of data showing that Tribal and non-Tribal communities alike are stronger when Tribal nations are empowered in their pursuit of self-determination.”

Maine SCT Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Court Remedies in Land Dispute [Passamaquoddy]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Moyant v. Petit:

21me013

Tribal briefs from the trial court:

Tribe Motion to Dismiss

Tribe Opposition to PI Motion

Maine Supreme Judicial Court Affirms Denial of Intervention in Child Welfare Case

Kate Fort

Here.

The State removed non-member children from their tribal member mother, and opposed the Passamaquoddy Tribe’s request for intervention. While intervention is one of right under ICWA, because these children are non-member children, the Court found that ICWA did not apply. In addition, the Court denied the Tribe’s request for permissive intervention in a cursory paragraph. The Court based much of its interpretation and decision on the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, making it fairly specific to tribes in Maine. Regardless, the reasoning is frustrating, especially for a permissive intervention, which is apparently allowed “when a ‘[nonparty’s] claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common’ and intervention will not ‘unduly delay or
prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.’” M.R. Civ. P. 24(b).

The dissent, pointing out that “In the matter before us, for the safety of the children, the District Court (Calais, D. Mitchell, J.) rejected the request to place the children in a kinship placement with their maternal grandmother. Instead, it authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to seek a foster placement for the children off the reservation and with caregivers who are not related to the children and are not members of the Passamaquoddy Tribe”, therefore “[w]ith the prospect of the children being removed from their Passamaquoddy relatives and the reservation community, the Passamaquoddy Tribe sought to intervene as a matter of right or, alternatively, with the court’s permission.” The dissent also acknowledges the Tribe’s assertion that”their participation in decisions related to the placement and resources available to the children are matters of importance to the court in addressing the needs of the children, whose mother is a member of the Passamaquoddy Tribe. The Tribe’s role, distinct from the role of family members, is important in informing the court of options regarding tribal resources and connections to tribal culture.”

(You had to know I’d end a series of ICWA posts on the case I found the most frustrating.)

Prologue of Major News Profile of Passamaquoddy Tribe’s River Fight

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “A 13,000-year journey leads to a breaking point.”

An earlier profile is here.

Article on Maine Fisheries and the Passamaquoddy

Kate Fort1 Comment

Here.

For centuries, the Passamaquoddy people of Maine have faced a violation of their inherent rights as Indigenous Peoples. They have been repeatedly displaced from their original lands by European settlers since the 16th century, eventually limited to their current reservation in eastern Washington County, Maine. Now their fishing rights —an intrinsic part of Passamaquoddy culture and sustenance —are threatened, under the ironic pretext of equal protection for state fishermen. At issue are two pieces of legislation, both in conflict with the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act and the Maine Implementing Act. The Passamaquoddy refused to comply with LD-451, a law that limited the tribe to issuing just 200 elver licenses in 2013, and this year’s LD-1625, which requires state fishery officials to approve each individual tribal elver license in writing. The tribe has been in discussion with the state since January on ways the Passamaquoddy can maintain its cultural identity throughout the fishing season “because our fishery is based on culture, conservation, and preservation of the eel,” says Passamaquoddy Tribal Councilman Newell Lewey.

ICT on Keith Harper and Cobell & Other Trust Settlements

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

An excerpt:

According to press reports, Harper, who was registered as a lobbyist for tribes in 2008, did have influence at the U.S. Department of the Interior on Indian issues while serving as a “team lead,” and under transition team guidelines, he was allowed to offer input on his personal work, which focused largely on Indian and tribal trust issues since the 1990s. This has led to the question of whether Harper recommended the hiring of the very administration officials with whom he and his firm later negotiated trust settlements. Another vexing question is whether there was a deal struck between Harper and administration officials that enhanced his firm’s financial gain from the Cobell settlement, or from other trust cases that he and his firm handled for tribes.

Keith Harper 270x180 White House Says Lawyer in Cobell Deal Recused on Administration Conflicts; Facts Contradict

Keith Harper, a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton

A tribal trust case Harper and his firm worked on for the Passamaquoddy Tribe resulted in a settlement with the Obama administration of $12 million this April. In that agreement, the federal government stipulated that the lawyers were to be paid 15 percent of the settlement, $1.8 million. The agreement also said that fees for Harper’s firm were to be paid directly from the federal government. Dozens of other tribal trust settlements announced at the same time were not structured in this manner; instead, tribal officials received the full settlement, and the tribes then decided how to pay their lawyers—and in all known cases at rates lower than what Harper’s firm received for its work for the Passamaquoddy Tribe. There were 41 tribal trust settlements announced at the time.

Francis v. Dana-Cummings V in the Maine Supreme Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

At least I think it’s V. Regardless the Maine Supreme Court has returned again to the meaning of “internal tribal matters” in this case, which is a housing eviction case on the Passamaquoddy reservation. Here, the court holds that Maine state law is inapplicable to the challenge made by Francis to the eviction.

Here is the opinion.

US v. Newell — DCT Refuses to Dismiss Indictment Against Former Passamaquoddy Governor

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

I guess the heading says it all — Robert Newell was indicted for misappropriating federal money while governor of the tribe. His arguments on the motion to dismiss were based in federal Indian law; i.e., sovereign immunity, federal government failure to comply with PL 638. etc.

us-v-newell-indictment

dct-order-on-newell-motion-to-dismiss

Nulankeyutmonen Nkihtaqmikon v. Impson Remanded to BIA

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

On remand in Nulankeyutmonen Nkihtaqmikon v. Impson, the district court held that the case should be remanded to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for administrative review. This case concerns a challenge to a BIA lease granted on/near Indian lands in Maine for a liquified natural gas plant.

dct-order-8-16-08

us-renewed-motion-to-dismiss

opposition-to-renewed-motion-to-dismiss

bia-reply-brief

Earlier opinions:

dct-opinion-11-16-06

ca1-opinion