Rick asks whether the bottom line of Carcieri is that newly recognized tribes (that is, tribes recognized after 1934, the date of the federal Indian Reorganization Act) should continue to be allowed to gain trust lands through the Secretary, but should be disallowed from operating gaming on those lands.
Archive
April 13th, 2012
Follow Up on Carcieri Impacts: This One's for Rick
Rick asks whether the bottom line of Carcieri is that newly recognized tribes (that is, tribes recognized after 1934, the date of the federal Indian Reorganization Act) should continue to be allowed to gain trust lands through the Secretary, but should be disallowed from operating gaming on those lands.
April 10th
Kathryn & Steve Quoted in Indian Country Today Article
March 31st
Kathryn & Steve's UNLV Faculty Lecture Podcast
Thanks to David Schwartz with the UNLV Center for Gaming Research for hosting the podcast!
March 30th
What's the Difference Between "Under Federal Jurisdiction" and Federal Recognition?
The Carcieri case turned on the Court's interpretation of the extent of authority granted to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior under the federal Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. Through the IRA, Congress delegated authority to the Secretary to take lands into trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe. The statute defines "Indian" as "all persons of Indian descent who are members of any recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction."
March 20th
Reno Casinos Blame California Tribal Gaming for Financial Woes
But now, the Silver Legacy is trying to avoid defaulting on a $142M bond. The casino's owners are negotiating a restructuring of the debt.
