Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Newsom

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

March 21, 2019

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Gavin Newsom, Governor of California; State of California, Defendants-Appellees.

          Submitted October 9, 2018 [*] Pasadena, California

          Appeal from the United States District Court D.C. No. 5:16-cv-01347-JFW-MRW for the Central District of California John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

          Lester J. Marston, Rapport and Marston, Ukiah, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellant.

          Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California; Sara J. Drake, Senior Assistant Attorney General; T. Michelle Laird and James G. Waian, Deputy Attorneys General; Office of the Attorney General, San Diego, California; for Defendants-Appellees.

          Before: Sandra S. Ikuta and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges, and Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., [**] District Judge.

         SUMMARY[***]

         Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

         The panel affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment to the State of California in an action brought by Indian tribes under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

         The panel held that IGRA permits tribes and states to negotiate the duration of a compact governing the conduct of a tribe's class III gaming activities. Accordingly, a termination provision in a compact was not void under IGRA.

          OPINION

          GILLIAM, DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This case presents an issue of first impression: Does the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA"), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721, permit tribes and states to negotiate the duration of a compact governing the conduct of a tribe's class III gaming activities? Because we conclude that IGRA's plain language permits durational provisions in compacts, we affirm the district court's order granting summary judgment to the State of California.

         I

         Congress passed IGRA to establish a framework for regulating gaming on Indian lands. See 25 U.S.C. § 2702. Under that framework, IGRA creates three classes of gaming. In re Indian Gaming Related Cases, 331 F.3d 1094, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2003) (Coyote Valley II). Class III gaming, the kind at issue here, "includes the types of high-stakes games usually associated with Nevada-style gambling," and "is subject to a greater degree of federal-state regulation than either class I or class II gaming." Coyote Valley II, 331 F.3d at 1097; see also 25 U.S.C. § 2703(8) (defining "class III gaming"). In general, class III gaming may occur on Indian lands only if the activity is (1) authorized by an ordinance or resolution "adopted by the governing body of the Indian tribe having jurisdiction over such lands" and "approved by the Chairman" of the National Indian Gaming Commission ("the Chairperson"); (2) "located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity"; and (3) "conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the State . . . that is in effect." 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1).[1]

         The Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians and the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe are federally recognized Indian tribes in California. California permits certain forms of class III gaming under an effective tribal-state gaming compact. The Tribes each have enacted gaming ordinances that were approved by the Chairperson. Each of the Tribes executed a compact with the State in 1999, and the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs approved each compact.[2] On May 16, 2000, notice of that approval was published in the Federal Register. Under the Compact, the Tribes operate casinos on "Indian lands," as that term is defined in IGRA.

         The 1999 Compact contains a termination provision ("the Termination Provision") that sets December 31, 2020 as the Compact's end date. The Termination Provision automatically extends the end date to June 30, 2022 if the parties have not agreed to amend the Compact or entered into a new compact before December 31, 2020.

         The Compact separately includes (1) provisions for renegotiation and amendment; (2) meet and confer requirements before a party may seek arbitration or file suit; and (3) a limited waiver of the State's sovereign immunity for issues "arising under" the Compact. It is undisputed that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.