Catawba Indian Nation v. State
407 S.C. 526
| S.C. | 2014Background
- The Catawba Tribe and South Carolina entered a 1993 Settlement Agreement (codified in federal and state law) resolving historic land claims; the Tribe waived IGRA and agreed its gaming rights would be governed by the Settlement Agreement and State Act.
- Both the Settlement Agreement §16.8 and S.C. Code §27-16-110(G) allow the Tribe to permit video poker "to the same extent" as authorized by state law; video poker was legal in 1993 but the Legislature banned it statewide in 1999 (S.C. Code §12‑21‑2710).
- In 2005 the Tribe sued seeking a declaration that the post‑1993 ban did not strip its right to video poker; this Court held in 2007 the Tribe’s right is subject to subsequent changes in state law and thus the 1999 ban precluded video poker on the Reservation.
- Also in 2005 the Legislature enacted the Gambling Cruise Act delegating to counties/municipalities authority (under the Johnson Act framework) to regulate or prohibit gambling aboard vessels that leave and return to state waters; the Act expressly states it does not repeal or modify other gambling laws and does not permit gambling within state territorial waters.
- In 2012 the Tribe filed a new declaratory judgment action: it argued the Gambling Cruise Act constitutes an "authorization" of video poker under §16.8 and §27‑16‑110(G), thereby entitling the Tribe to offer video poker on the Reservation despite the 1999 ban.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to the State, holding the Tribe’s suit was precluded by collateral estoppel/res judicata and that the Gambling Cruise Act does not authorize video poker on the Reservation; the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Tribe’s 2012 declaratory action is precluded by collateral estoppel or res judicata | Tribe: prior 2005 lawsuit did not adjudicate the Gambling Cruise Act issue; new issue may be litigated | State: Tribe could have raised the Act in 2005; prior adjudication bars relitigation | Court: Collateral estoppel and res judicata do not bar the 2012 action (reversed as to preclusion) |
| Whether the Gambling Cruise Act "authorizes" video poker for purposes of §16.8/§27‑16‑110(G) | Tribe: The Act is a state "authorization" of video poker; thus Tribe may offer video poker "to the same extent" | State: The Act does not alter the statewide ban; it merely delegates opt‑out authority for offshore cruises and expressly does not repeal or permit gambling within state waters | Court: Gambling Cruise Act does not authorize video poker on Reservation; statewide ban remains controlling (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc., 476 U.S. 498 (U.S. 1986) (history of Treaties, state trust land, and federal legislation concerning the Catawba)
- Catawba Indian Tribe of S.C. v. State, 372 S.C. 519, 642 S.E.2d 751 (S.C. 2007) (held Tribe's right to video poker is subject to later changes in state law)
- Palmetto Princess, L.L.C. v. Georgetown County, 369 S.C. 34, 631 S.E.2d 68 (S.C. 2006) (Johnson Act analysis; only a state, not localities, could opt out absent legislative delegation)
- Union County Sheriff's Office v. Henderson, 395 S.C. 516, 719 S.E.2d 665 (S.C. 2011) (confirmed §12‑21‑2710 prohibits possession/operation of illegal gambling machines)