ancestry.” Maverick is requesting the court to declare the compact amendments and 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 was briefly paused 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 court lacks personal jurisdiction over the state defendants and 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. West Flagler Associates, Ltd., et al. v. Haaland, et al. (Case No. 1:21-cv-02192)— In 2021, two suits were filed, one by West Flagler plaintiffs and one by Monterra plaintiffs. Both suits seek to declare 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), to be in violation of IGRA and federal law and thus not in effect. 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 type of 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 Court found that because the language of the Seminole compact authorized sports betting on and off Indian Lands (allowing patrons who are “physically located in the State but not on [the Tribe’s] Indian lands” to engage in sports betting), the Secretary had a duty to reject the compact under IGRA. The Secretary argued that the compact only authorized online gaming activities that occur on Indian lands, including the receipt of online sports bets that are placed elsewhere. The Court was not persuaded by this argument, stating that the clear language of the compact affirmatively authorizes sports betting on and off the Tribe’s lands. The case is currently on appeal. Secretary Haaland filed a motion to consolidate in late February, which has garnered an opposition response from Flagler Associate plaintiffs and an appeal filed by Monterra plaintiffs in U.S. District Court of Appeals. On June 1, 2022, a three-judge panel ordered that the motion for consolidation be dismissed as moot after granting the DOJ’s motion for voluntary dismissal, which sought to dismiss its own appeal. In a court order issued on July 8, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered opening briefs from the Seminole Tribe and the Department of Interior be filed by August 17, 2022, and the final reply briefs for the Tribe and Department must be filed by November 14, 2022. There have been no dates set for oral argument, but the present schedule ensures the matter will not be resolved until at least 2023. State Representative Randy Fine, Chairman of the Florida House Select Committee on Gaming, stated that he "expects to see the compact work its way through the courts before any new action is taken" by the legislature. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (SCOTUS) . Argued late February 2022; Decided June 15, 2022. Facts/Issue: Ysleta del Sur Pueblo is a federally recognized tribe with a reservation near El Paso, Texas. Under the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act, passed by Congress in 1987, the Pueblo agreed that its gaming activities would comply with Texas law. The Pueblo engaged in gaming activity that allegedly violated state law, but not the IGRA, and Texas filed a lawsuit to enjoin the tribe’s gaming operations. The district court ruled in favor of the State of Texas, finding that the more restrictive Restoration Act controlled and prohibited the gaming operations. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Pueblo’s argument centers on the reference to “prohibited” activities is a short-hand reference to Cabazon (what is permitted outright, and what is allowed but regulated).
17
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs