For more on the historic Narragansett case, see these links:AP coverage of the case.
Providence Journal article on which attorney actually argued the case.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Carcieri v. Kempthorne, the case that is expected to settle, once and for all, the litigation between Rhode Island and the Narragansett Indian Tribe that began in 1975, when the Narragansett filed suit to recover tribal lands in Rhode Island.
The Court is expected to decide two key issues:
Kathryn's quoted in this Tampa Tribune story on the aftermath of the Florida Supreme Court's decision invalidating a portion of the Seminoles' tribal-state compact. As we explained in a number of posts back in July (check our archives if you're interested in catching up!), the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Gov. Crist exceeded his state constitutional authority in authorizing banked card games through the tribal-state compact with the Seminoles.
On July 8, 2008, the federal district court issued a decision in the case challenging the NIGC's approval of the Seneca Nation's amended ordinance. The case, brought by Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County, is an effort to prevent the tribe from operating a casino in Buffalo.
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.
As everyone knows (right?), IGRA only authorizes Class II and III gaming on "Indian lands." For non-reservation land, the determination of whether a parcel of land is "Indian lands" can be very complicated, requiring careful analysis of a complex history of the tribe's interactions and agreements with the state and the federal government. In his July 8 decision, federal judge William Skretny conducted just that kind of analysis, reaching all the way back to the 17th century.
July is the month for high-profile Indian gaming litigation, and from the looks of it, expect further developments in August.
Besides the controversial case handed down by the Florida Supreme Court earlier this month, litigation has been brewing in New York over the Buffalo Creek Casino.
As we explained in our last post, Florida's options for enforcing the Florida Supreme Court decision are limited. Though the court held that the governor could not authorize banked card games as a matter of state constitutional law, this may not necessarily mean that the Seminoles have to stop offering table games at their Hard Rock Hotel & Casino. Legally, the state must turn to the federal government, and politically, the state must decide whether it wants to risk hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue sharing.