Seminole Gaming Compact Set Aside

Here are the orders (they are the same) in West Flagler Associates Ltd. v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

43 DCT Order

And in Monterra MF v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

55 DCT Order

Briefs in both cases here.

Federal Suit(s) Filed against Seminole Gaming Compact [updated]

Here are relevant materials in West Flagler Associates Ltd. v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

1-1 Seminole Compact

1-6 Interior Letter

Updates (10/14/21, 10/19/21, 10/21/21, 11/23/21)

13 Seminole Motion

19 WF Motion for Summary J

22 WF Opposition to 13

24 Seminole Reply in Support of 13

25 Federal Motion to Dismiss

28 Florida Amicus Brief

31 WF Opposition to Motion to Transfer

41 Interior Response

43 DCT Order

Here are materials in West Flagler Associates Ltd. v. DeSantis (N.D. Fla.):

1 Complaint

18 First Amended Complaint

21 Seminole Motion to Intervene and Dismiss

22 Desantis Motion to Dismiss

26 WF Response to 20

27 WF Response to 22

33 Desantis Reply in Support of 20

34 WF Motion for Summary J

Update (10/19/2021):

Here are materials in Monterra MF v. Haaland (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

31 Seminole Motion to Intervene

35 Federal Motion to Dismiss

36 Federal Motion to Transfer

37-4 Monterra MSJ

53 Interior Response

Trust Breach Claims by Nine Tribes Survives Motion to Dismiss

Here are the materials in Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate v. Jewell (D.C. District Court):

17 Amended Complaint

19 US Motion to Dismiss

22 Opposition

23 US Reply

27 DCT Order

Fletcher Paper on the Seminole Tribe and the Origins of Indian Gaming

At the invitation of Alex Pearl and the FIU Law Review to write a symposium piece on Florida Indian history and law, a challenge for me since I know very little about it, I came up with “The Seminole Tribe and the Origins of Indian Gaming.” Assuming the law review finds it publishable, it will appear in the FIU Law Review alongside the work of luminaries like Siegfriend Weissner and Sarah Krakoff.

Here is the abstract:

The Seminole Tribe of Florida has played perhaps the most important role in the origins and development of Indian gaming in the United States of any single tribe. The tribe opened the first tribally owned high stakes bingo hall in 1979. The tribe in 1981 was involved in one of the earliest lower court decisions forming the basis of the legal theory excluding most states from the regulation of high stakes bingo, a theory that Congress largely codified in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) years later. The tribe was a party to the Supreme Court decision in 1996 that radically altered the bargaining power between tribes and states over the negotiation and regulation of casino-style gaming under IGRA. And more recently, the tribe has been a leading participant in negotiations and litigation over the regulatory landscape of Indian gaming after the 1996 decision. The Tribe is one of the most successful Indian gaming tribes in the nation.

This paper traces that history, but also offers thoughts on how the culture and traditional governance structures of the Seminole Tribe played a part in its leadership role in the arena of Indian gaming.

Mashantucket Pequot Second Circuit En Banc Petition (and Amicus Support)

Here are the new materials in Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard (2d Cir.):

MPN En Banc Petition

Amicus Brief in Support of En Banc Petition — Seminole, Umatilla, and Coquille

Panel decision and briefs are here.