McCracken v. Easley — N.C. Court Says IGRA Doesn’t Allow State to Ban Video Poker

Here is the opinion in McCracken v. Easley — mccracken-v-easley (via Pechanga and TV):

Strange case. Without any discussion except one sentence, the court struck down a state law ban on video poker, a ban that excluded tribal gaming in accordance with a Class III compact. The sentence is: “IGRA does not permit a state to ban the possession and operation of video gaming machines elsewhere in the state while allowing their possession and operation on tribal lands.”

I’d like to see the briefs, but all I can say is … baffling. Of course IGRA allows exactly this kind of law. IGRA allows tribes to negotiate and execute Class III compacts with states that have not banned gaming outright. And even if the state bans all gaming post-Class III compact, the compact will continue until it expires.

Future Per Cap Income as Restitution in Criminal Case

In United States v. Roach et al., the Western District of North Carolina used future, expected tribal per cap to calculate restitution in a murder case.

DCT Order – US v. Roach et al.

US v. Littlejohn — Garnishment of Tribal Per Cap

This is how the United States goes after the tribal per capita payments of convicted criminals. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians argued they were immune from the order of garnishment, but there is no sovereign immunity from suit by the United States.

Notice of Garnishment

Convict’s Response to Notice of Garnishment

Tribal Response to Notice of Garnishment

United States Response

District Court Garnishment Order and Opinion