8/10/22
Compact Negotiations
■ IGRA requires states to negotiate in “good faith” – While IGRA authorizes tribe to bring action against state in federal court to compel good faith negotiations, the Supreme Court’s 1996 decision in Seminole Tribe v. Florida makes it impossible to litigate the “good faith” issue in the absence of a state waiver of its 11 th Amendment immunity. ■ Possible negotiation subjects include: – Application of tribal and state criminal and civil laws and regulations in relation to the licensing and regulation of Class III gaming – Allocation of criminal and civil jurisdiction between the Indian tribe and the state – Assessments by the state to defray the costs of regulation – Remedies for breach – Standards for the operation of Class III gaming – Any other subjects directly related to the operation of Class III gaming activities
9
What is Not Permitted in Compact Negotiations? ■ Discussions of expanding, restricting, or altering land, water, hunting, or fishing rights ■ Boundary disputes ■ Negotiations of revenue sharing that constitute a tax, fee, charge or other assessment ■ Offers that exceed the jurisdiction or power of the state government ■ Any term negotiation that is not germane to Class III gaming
10
5
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs