Supreme Court Updates
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (Cert. granted October 18, 2021)— Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas involves an appeal of the Fifth Circuit’s decision that the state of Texas’ gambling laws apply on the Indian lands of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (Tigua Tribe). Following decades of litigation between the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and the state of Texas concerning whether, and to what extent, any gaming may be offered by the Pueblo on its lands, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear this case on October 18, 2021. Congress terminated the government’s relationship with the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo in 1968, but restored the Tribe’s governmental status through enactment of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama-Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act (“Restoration Act”) in 1987 – one year prior to the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”). While the Pueblo was restored to federal recognition, the Restoration Act set provided that “[a]ll gaming activities which are prohibited by the laws of the State of Texas are hereby prohibited on the reservation and on lands of the [Ysleta del Sur Pueblo].” It further provided that violations of the prohibition would be subject to the state’s civil and criminal penalties. The main issue in this case centers around the conflicting applicability IGRA and the Restoration Act. The Pueblo, which sought to offer certain class II games on its lands, contends that IGRA plainly authorizes such gaming since Texas merely regulates, rather than prohibits bingo. Texas, seeking to enjoin the Pueblo’s gaming activities, argues that IGRA does not apply, rather the Restoration Act is controlling. Texas asserts that because the two federal statutes are incompatible, the specific provisions of the Restoration Act prevail over the general provisions of IGRA, and that under the Restoration Act, Texas’s gaming restrictions operate as federal law on the Pueblo’s Indian lands. Relying on precedent from previous litigation between the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Texas, the Western District of Texas and the Fifth Circuit found for the state of Texas. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the Pueblo’s appeal. No specific date for oral argument has yet been set. Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation (June 25, 2021)— The United States Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated opinion in a dispute centering around whether Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) are qualified to receive funding that was made available exclusively to “Tribal governments” in Title V of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. In a 6-3 opinion penned by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court held that because ANCs are “Indian tribes” under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA), ANCs are thus eligible for funding under Title V of the CARES Act. One of the primary purposes of the CARES Act was to provide economic relief to individuals, businesses, and government organizations at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among disbursements that were going to governmental organizations, Title V of the CARES Act set aside $8 billion specifically for payments to be made to “Tribal governments.” Under the CARES Act, “Tribal government” is defined as the “recognized governing body of an Indian tribe” as defined in the ISDA. The ISDA, in turn, defines an “Indian Tribe” as: “Any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.” This dispute arose after the Department of the Treasury determined that ANCs were eligible for CARES Act relief, and set aside more than $500 million (of the $8 billion allocated to be disbursed Tribal governments) for ANCs. A number of federally recognized tribes sued, arguing that only federally recognized tribes are “Indian tribes” under the ISDA, and therefore only federally recognized tribes, and not ANCs, are “Tribal governments” eligible to receive funding under the CARES Act. In supporting the Department of the Treasury’s interpretation of the CARES Act that the term “Tribal governments” includes ANCs, the Supreme Court began its opinion by stating a “simple truth” that “Alaska is often the exception, not the rule.” After providing a brief history and legal analysis of ANCs, Alaska
15
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs