The plaintiffs claimed that the Buffalo parcel is not "Indian lands," so that Chairman Hogen's conclusion that the parcel meets IGRA's Indian lands requirement is arbitrary and capricious. After a lengthy analysis, Judge Skretny rejected this claim.
Archive - Aug 2008
August 19th
Buffalo Creek Casino Case: Judge Skretny's Decision
The plaintiffs claimed that the Buffalo parcel is not "Indian lands," so that Chairman Hogen's conclusion that the parcel meets IGRA's Indian lands requirement is arbitrary and capricious. After a lengthy analysis, Judge Skretny rejected this claim.
August 15th
Buffalo Creek Casino Case: The Challenges to the NIGC's Actions
First, in 2002, the NIGC approved an ordinance for gaming on unspecified lands. Then, in 2007, the NIGC approved an amended ordinance specifying the Buffalo parcel as the location for the casino. The 2007 approval expressly found that the parcel was "Indian lands," and qualified for the "settlement of a land claim" exception.
August 11th
The Buffalo Creek Casino Case: The NIGC's Actions
August 6th
Arizona Indian Gaming Revenue Down—What, Me Worry?
Since 2003, Arizona tribes have distributed about $430 million to the state, which then channels the funds to various programs, like schools, hospitals, wildlife conservation, police protection, and other social services, including the mitigation of gambling addiction.
