(Split) Tenth Circuit Rules against Pojoaque Pueblo in Gaming Dispute with State of New Mexico

Here is the opinion in Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico.

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs-Appellants Pueblo of Pojoaque and its governor, Joseph M. Talachy, (collectively “the Pueblo”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal of its claim for declaratory and injunctive relief based on the State of New Mexico’s alleged unlawful interference with Class III gaming operations on the Pueblo’s lands. Pueblo of Pojoaque v. New Mexico, 214 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (D.N.M. 2016). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

From the dissent:

This appeal turns on what constitutes regulation of tribal gaming.
The majority answers narrowly, stating that New Mexico is regulating Indian gaming only when the regulation is directly applied to Indian gaming on tribal land. In my view, this approach is unsupportable and unrealistic. Under the allegations in the Pueblo’s complaint, New Mexico is trying—with considerable success—to disrupt the Pueblo’s gaming operations by targeting the Pueblo’s vendors. This disruption is not
softened by the state’s strategy of targeting vendors.

Briefs here.

Tenth Circuit Strikes Down Part 291 Secretarial Procedures

Here is the opinion in State of New Mexico v. Dept. of Interior.

Briefs here.

Tenth Circuit Issues Temporary Injunction against New Mexico in Dispute with Pueblo of Pojoaque

Here are the materials in Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico:

Pojoaque Emergency Motion

CA10 Temporary Order

Lower court denial of stay here. Lower court materials here.

No Stay Pending IGRA Appeal in 10th Circuit for Pueblo of Pojoaque

Link: Previous posts

Here are further materials and briefs in the matter of Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico, 16-cv-00625 (D. NM):

Pojoaque/New Mexico Contempt Materials in Gaming Compact Dispute

Here are the materials in Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico (D. N.M.):

53 Pojoaque Motion for Contempt

62 Response

68 Reply

115 DCT Order

An excerpt:

The Court will deny the Motion. First, although the Plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate that they suffered actual damages, such damages would help them to establish that the deferrals constitute threats. Second, the deferrals do not “threaten” the vendors within Judge Brack’s PI’s meaning. The Gaming Board, however, treads perilously close to civil contempt and should take care not to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ vendors.