NIGC Prevails in Dispute with City of Duluth over the Fond du Luth Casino

The D.C. District Court granted the NIGC’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the City’s APA challenge to the Fond-du-Luth NOV. Here is the order in City of Duluth v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. D.C.):

APA case — District Court Op. (March 31 2015)

An excerpt:

Plaintiff City of Duluth, Minnesota, brings this action challenging a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) that the National Indian Gaming Commission (the “Commission”) issued to the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (the “Band”) with respect to Band’s gaming establishment in the City of Duluth. This action is the latest step in a long saga pertaining to the relationship of the Band and the City of Duluth with respect to gaming, including proceedings in federal court in Minnesota, before the National Indian Gaming Commission, and, now, before this Court as well. In a nutshell, in the NOV, issued July 12, 2011, the National Indian Gaming Commission informed the Band that the 1994 Agreement between the Band and the City of Duluth violated the requirement that the Band have the “sole proprietary interest” in the gaming activity pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. The City of Duluth filed this action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, claiming that the NOV, first, was arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law, and, second, exceeded Defendants’ authority under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The City of Duluth requests that the NOV be set aside and requests related declaratory and injunctive relief. The Federal Defendants—the Commission and Jonodev Chaudhuri, in his official capacity as Acting Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission—argue that the NOV neither was arbitrary or capricious nor exceeded the scope of the Commission’s authority. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s [24] Motion for Summary Judgment and the Federal Defendants’ [26] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s [24] Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS the Federal Defendants’ [26] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court concludes that the NOV was not arbitrary or capricious; that it did not exceed the scope of the Commission’s authority; and that none of the other legal infirmities that Plaintiff identifies are grounds for setting aside the NOV. Accordingly, this case is dismissed in its entirety.

Briefs are here.

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Briefing in City of Duluth v. National Indian Gaming Commission


25 Duluth Motion for Summary J

26 US Cross Motion for Summary J

27-1 Fond du Lac Proposed Amicus Bref

30 Duluth Reply

33 US Reply

The materials on the federal government’s motion to dismiss are here.

Complaint is here.


Federal Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in City of Duluth v. NIGC


26 US Cross Motion for Summary J


27-1 Fond du Lac Proposed Amicus Brief

The City’s motion is here.

Update in City of Duluth v. NIGC

Here is Duluth’s motion for summary judgment:

25 Duluth Motion for Summary J

Prior materials here.

Federal Court Declines to Dismiss City of Duluth v. NIGC on Standing Grounds

Here is the opinion in City of Duluth v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. D.C.):

DCT order Denying NIGC Motion to Dismiss

Briefs are here:

Federal Motion to Dismiss

Duluth Opposition

Federal Reply

Complaint here.

Is Prudential Standing Jurisdictional?

The D. C. Circuit says yes. Last week’s article (on the blog Circuit Splits) is here. The article analyzes how the  D.C. Circuit decision Grocery Manufacturers Association v. E.P.A. creates a circuit split as to whether prudential standing is jurisdictional. The dissent in the case relies significantly on Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak.


SCOTUSBlog Preview of Salazar/Gun Lake Band v. Patchak Argument


An excerpt:

One might think that this is not the stuff of an historic oral argument.  But this will be the thirty-first oral argument before the Court for Patricia Millett, who represents the Tribe, which will make her the woman with the most Supreme Court oral arguments in history.

Congrats to Pattie!!!!

Patchak v. Skibine — Suit against Gun Lake Trust Acquisition Redux

Here’s the news article about it (via Indianz). The materials are here: