The Circuit Court then reviewed the merits of the other three arguments brought by West Flagler, which the District Court did not reach in its analysis. In looking at the arguments regarding the Wire Act and the UIGEA, the Court found the Secretary was not required to disapprove the Compact on either basis as both arguments present questions requiring hypothetical outcomes following the implementation of the Compact. Finally, the Court found that the Secretary did not “authorize” or “grant the Tribe a statewide monopoly over online sports betting” and therefore did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection guarantee. However, the Court makes it clear that even if the Secretary did authorize such sports betting, her approval would survive rational basis review under Mancari , stating that the exclusivity provisions are “rationally related to the legitimate legislative purposes laid out in IGRA by ‘ensuring that the Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation.’” Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Haaland (Case No. 20-5123; consolidated with 20- 5125, 20-5127, and 20-5128 ) – This matter came before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to settle a dispute as to whether land acquired by the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians must be taken into trust by the Department of the Interior. The Tribe purchased the parcel in question with interest from its self-sufficiency fund and sought to have it taken into federal trust to later establish gaming operations on the lands. As part of the trust acquisition process, the Tribe stated the land was acquired for the enhancement of tribal lands, which would permit its purchase of the land with its self-sufficiency funds under the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act. The Department of Interior disagreed and stated that the mere acquisition of new lands was not an “enhancement” under Michigan law and declined to take the parcel into trust. The Tribe brought suit, and the Court ultimately found that the Department does have the authority to verify that the Tribe properly acquired the parcel with the self-sufficiency fund interests. Furthermore, upon that review, the Court agreed that the Department correctly asserted that “an acquisition that merely increases the Tribe’s landholdings” qualifies as an enhancement of tribal lands. The matter was reversed in favor of the Department of Interior and sent back to the district court for proceedings consistent with the Court of Appeals’ ruling. The Tribe has since filed a petition for en banc review with the Court of Appeals. Unite Here Local 30 v. Sycuan Band of Kumeyaay Indians (Case No. 21-55017) – Coming before the Ninth Circuit on appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the Court was asked to review the District Court’s finding in favor of a labor union, Unite Here Local 30, and the dismissal of the Sycuan Band of Kumeyaay Indians’ counterclaim. The matter arose from a suit brought by the labor union to compel arbitration of its allegations that the Band violated the labor provision of the parties’ contract with respect to the operation of the Band’s casino. The Band filed a counterclaim, seeking a declaratory judgment to affirm that federal law preempted labor organizing provision of its gaming compact with the State of California. The provision at issue required the Band to maintain a Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance, which would set forth the parties’ agreement about specific labor rights for casino employees. Unite Here alleged that the Band violated the Ordinance by refusing its demands regarding its intent to organize the casino employees. The District Court concluded that an arbitrator should decide issues of contract validity, and the counterclaim rested on an issue of contract validity. The Circuit Court, on review, found that Unite Here and the Band formed an agreement to arbitrate because the Band promised the State of California in its compact that if any union made certain promises to the tribe, the Band would automatically enter into a bilateral contract with that union adopting the Ordinance’s terms. Finding that a bilateral contract was formed and that no notice was provided to the State of California of the counterclaim, the Circuit Court affirmed the District Court’s ruling.
16
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs