The decision is a truly remarkable victory for Indian Country and the protection of Native families. As Justice Gorsuch noted in his concurring opinion, "In affirming the constitutionality of ICWA, the Court safeguards the ability of tribal members to raise their children free from interference by state authorities and other outside parties. In the process, the Court also goes a long way toward restoring the original balance between federal, state, and tribal powers the Constitution envisioned.” Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin , 22–227 On June 15, 2023, the Supreme Court held, eight to one, that Native American tribes, like states and the federal government, must comply with the bankruptcy process. The Bankruptcy Code includes a provision that expressly abrogates the sovereign immunity of “governmental units” for specific purposes. The question before the court was whether this abrogation of government immunity also extends to federally recognized Indian tribes. The court found that Congress had conveyed its intent to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity in unequivocal terms, meeting the high bar to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court's ruling establishes that Native American tribes, akin to states and the federal government, must adhere to the bankruptcy process. By determining that the Bankruptcy Code's abrogation of sovereign immunity extends to federally recognized Indian tribes, the Court sought to maintain consistency and fairness in the treatment of creditors, while upholding statutory construction principles and the overall purpose of the bankruptcy system. Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States of America, et al. (WA D.Ct. Feb. 21, 2023)— Maverick Gaming LLC, a Washington-based company that owns and operates 19 card rooms within the State of Washington, filed suit against the United States, the Department of Interior, Sec. Haaland, and Asst. Sec. Bryan Newland, and a number of Washington state officials, for allowing tribes to engage in Class III gaming, including sports betting while prohibiting commercial, non-Indian entities from participating in such gaming. To date, the State of Washington has approved gaming compacts with 29 Indian Tribes, with 16 of those compacts being amended and approved to permit sports betting. Commercial entities like Maverick are barred under Washington criminal law from offering sports betting. Declaring the Tribes to have a “monopoly over most forms of casino-style gaming,” Maverick alleges that such monopoly is inconsistent with IGRA and federal criminal statutes, as well as in violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection by “irrationally and impermissibly discrimination on the basis of race and ancestry.” Maverick is requesting the court to declare the compact amendments and the Secretary’s approval of such compacts to be in violation of federal law and to declare them not in effect and to set aside and vacate the Secretary’s approval of the compact amendments permitting sports betting. The case paused briefly to address a motion to transfer the matter to the Western District Court of Washington. On April 28, 2022, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Florence Pan issued an oral order to grant the motion, stating that the case should have been filed in the appropriate Washington district court. Judge Pan also denied the plaintiff’s request to amend its complaint to remove allegations against state officials, citing a D.C. circuit opinion that prevents her from considering the motion to amend once a court determines there is no personal jurisdiction. The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. On October 3, 2022, the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join a required party. The case was transferred to the Western District Court of Washington, where the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation (“Shoalwater”) intervened to file a motion to dismiss. On February 21, 2023, the United States District Court Western District of Washington at Takoma granted the motion to dismiss based on Maverick’s failure to join Shoalwater pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(7) and 19, which, as relevant, ensure that all parties with an interest in an action are joined in the litigation. The district court found that 1) Shoalwater was a required party with genuine interests in the outcome of the litigation that would not be adequately represented by the United States alone; and 2) Shoalwater did not waive its sovereign immunity by intervening, and therefore, could not be joined to the suit. The court then performed
14
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs