a Rule 19(b) analysis to determine whether “in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed.” Based on this, the court found that the action should have been dismissed. Finally, the district court also found that no public rights exception to the joinder rules applied. Maverick disagreed with the district court’s findings that Shoalwater’s absence prevented the suit from going forward equitably. Accordingly, it appealed to the Court of Appeals for the 9 th Circuit, filing its opening brief on July 3, 2023. In its appeal, Maverick argued that the district’s court’s interpretation 1) contradicted precedent that the United States could adequately represent a tribal government absent a conflict of interest; and 2) would lead to what they viewed as absurd results—namely that a sovereign government preserving its immunity could “insulate…final agency actions [involving the sovereign] from any judicial review.” Maverick further notes that, since required-party status must be assessed on a claim-by-claim basis and at least one of its claims did not implicate Shoalwater, it was inappropriate for the district court to dismiss the matter as a whole. Overall, Maverick argues that dismissal because a sovereign cannot be joined by reason of their immunity, even when its interests are represented in the litigation by another party, unfairly deprives would be plaintiffs of the chance to seek remedies to which they might otherwise be entitled and is not a result intended by law, which generally favors “judicial review of administrative action.” Following a request for an amended briefing schedule by the appellees, response briefs from Shoalwater et al . are due on September 1, 2023. West Flagler Associates, Ltd., et al. v. Haaland, et al. (D.C. Circuit June 30, 2023)— In 2021, two suits were filed, one by West Flagler plaintiffs and one by Monterra plaintiffs. Both suits claim that the Seminole Tribe of Florida’s gaming compact, which had been amended to allow sports betting and was approved by the Secretary (by no-action), violates IGRA. West Flagler plaintiffs were suing as they felt the compact would limit their business by allowing the Tribe to monopolize sports betting; Monterra plaintiffs argued that any gaming expansion must be left to the Florida voters rather than the expansion through the compact. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the compact violated IGRA and granted the West Flagler plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment while denying the Monterra plaintiffs’ similar motion as moot and denying the Tribe and Secretary’s motions. The District Court found that because the language of the Seminole “Compact authorizes gaming both on and off Indian lands. The Compact accordingly violates IGRA’s ‘Indian lands’ requirement, which means that the Secretary had an affirmative duty to reject it.” The United States appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and oral arguments were held on December 14, 2022. During arguments, West Flagler challenged the Secretary’s approval by inaction on four grounds: (1) the Compact’s authorization of gaming off Indian lands was unlawful under IGRA, (2) the compact violated the Wire Act, (3) the Compact violated UIGEA, and (4) the Compact violated the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of Equal Protection. In a decision issued on June 30, 2023, the Circuit Court vacated the District Court’s opinion and entered judgment in favor of the Secretary. The Court rejected Plaintiff’s first claim that the Compact unlawfully violates IGRA by authorizing Class III gaming outside of Indian lands. The Secretary agreed that IGRA does not provide an independent source of legal authority for gaming outside of Indian lands.” However, the Secretary argued that “gaming outside of Indian lands … can be addressed in a compact.” The Court examined the language in the Compact discussing wagers on sports betting “made by players physically located within the State using a mobile or other electronic device,” which are “deemed to take place exclusively where received.” The Court reasoned that “the Compact does not say that these wagers are ‘authorized’ by the Compact.” Instead, this language “simply indicates that the parties to the Compact have agreed that they both consider such activity to occur on tribal lands. Because the compact requires all gaming disputes be resolved in accordance with tribal law, this ‘deeming’ provision simply allocates jurisdiction between Florida and the Tribe, as permitted by [IGRA].”
15
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs