Indian Gaming Now

Carcieri v. Salazar

Steve on the Mashpee Clearing One More Hurdle

Posted by Kathryn Rand | Filed under:
Feb 13 2013

The Mashpee Wampanoag have received a favorable preliminary advisory opinion from the Interior Department -- one more hurdle cleared in their race toward a casino in Taunton, MA.

Interior finds that the lands that tribe is asking to be acquired in trust would qualify as the Tribe's "initial reservation" under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).

NIGA on Carcieri

Posted by Kathryn Rand | Filed under:
Oct 2 2012
Calling the Supreme Court's decision a "job killer," National Indian Gaming Association Chair Ernie Stevens spoke candidly in this Indian Country Today article (by one of our favorite reporters, Gale Courey Toensing) about the impact of Carcieri v. Salazar and the potential for a legislative fix:

Kathryn Quoted on Mashpee Tribe & Taunton Casino

Posted by Kathryn Rand | Filed under:
Jul 10 2012
Kathryn is quoted extensively in this Taunton Gazette article, "Hurdles Still Stand Between Mashpee Tribe and Taunton Casino," on the effect of two Supreme Court cases on the Mashpee Wampanoag's efforts to secure trust lands.   Here's an excerpt from the article:

Follow Up on Carcieri Impacts: This One's for Rick

Posted by Kathryn Rand | Filed under:
Apr 13 2012
We recently received a question from our pen pal Rick as a follow up to our post on Carcieri.  (By the way, keep the questions and comments coming -- we love to hear from academics, practitioners, community members, and anyone else with an interest in tribal gaming law and policy!)

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.

What's the Difference Between "Under Federal Jurisdiction" and Federal Recognition?

Posted by Kathryn Rand | Filed under:
Mar 30 2012
We recently were posed with the question, "What's the difference between a federally recognized tribe and one that is under federal jurisdiction?"  The question, of course, implicates the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Carcieri v. Salazar.

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."

Happy New Year, and Clues About Carcieri

Posted by Kathryn Rand | Filed under:
Jan 3 2011
Happy New Year!  We're excited to continue blogging on Indian gaming law, policy, and politics in 2011.  And the hints are that we should see some significant developments in 2011.

Feinstein on "Reservation Shopping"

Posted by Kathryn Rand | Filed under:
Dec 8 2010
"It's time to say 'enough is enough' to reservation shopping," wrote Senator Dianne Feinstein in a guest editorial in the Contra Costa Times.  As we've explained, "reservation shopping" is a loaded term -- one of those soundbites that catches on and gets used to describe all sorts of situations, whether fairly or not.  "Reservation shopping" conjures up images of an unsavory backroom deal, where tribes compromise interests in "real" Indian lands for an ideally located casino.  Loaded and frequently misused terms like "reservation shopping" are difficult to unpack -- often, the hardest question is where to start.  So, we offer a few starting points for thinking critically about Feinstein's amendment.