Here are the updated materials in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James (N.D. Cal.):
Prior post here.
Case tag here.
Whether an Indian tribe’s governing body can be stripped of its sovereign immunity from suit for actions taken by its members in their official capacities, as long as a plaintiff merely names the members individually and those officials will be bound by any judgment entered.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the denial letter — Pinoleville denial.
And more commentary from Lance Boldrey:
Interior corrected the fundamental mistake from last year’s Upper Lake letter, in which they suggested that the number of machines a state might “allow” a tribe via compacting could somehow support revenue sharing. The Department has now returned to the position articulated in a letter to Forest County Potawatomi some years ago that the ordinary elements of a compact, such as number of machines, types of games, hours of operation, etc, cannot support revenue sharing with a state. Rather, a state must confer a substantial benefit that it was not otherwise obligated to negotiate.