Cayuga Nation v. Tanner, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10007

The Cayuga Nation reopened a Tribe-owned Class II gaming facility (Lakeside) in 2013; the Village of Union Springs cited a 1958 local ordinance criminalizing unauthorized bingo and issued violation notices and warnings of fines/imprisonment.
Nation members led by Clint Halftown (chair of a reconstituted tribal gaming commission) authorized litigation; a long-running intra-tribal leadership dispute means some tribal council members contest Halftown’s authority.
The BIA issued a February 2015 interim recognition decision acknowledging the 2006 Council with Halftown as the Nation’s federal representative for administering existing ISDA contracts, disclaiming recognition of competing factions.
The Village moved to dismiss in district court, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because resolving whether Halftown was authorized would require deciding tribal-law leadership disputes; the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and later held individual plaintiffs lacked standing.
The Second Circuit vacated, holding (1) federal courts may rely on BIA recognition decisions and need not resolve tribal-law leadership questions to find a litigant authorized to sue, and (2) three identified individual plaintiffs (Halftown, Twoguns, Wheeler) have standing because they face a credible threat of prosecution under the Ordinance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the Nation’s suit when tribal leadership authority is disputed	Deference to BIA recognition of Halftown is sufficient; courts need not resolve tribal-law disputes	Court must resolve tribal-law question of who is authorized to sue, otherwise no jurisdiction	Court held jurisdiction exists: where BIA has recognized leadership (even interim/limited), courts may defer and need not decide tribal-law leadership disputes
Whether individual tribal members have Article III standing to bring pre-enforcement challenge to the Ordinance	Identified individuals who manage Lakeside face a credible threat of prosecution and therefore have standing	Village argued no specific threat to named individuals and redressability is uncertain (IGRA private right issues)	Court held Halftown, Twoguns, Wheeler have standing: credible threat of prosecution exists; redress would prevent enforcement against them

Shenandoah v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 159 F.3d 708 (2d Cir. 1998) (federal courts generally lack authority to resolve internal tribal-law leadership disputes)
Runs After v. United States, 766 F.2d 347 (8th Cir. 1985) (federal courts should not intrude into tribal self-governance on internal matters)
Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 135 S. Ct. 2076 (2015) (Executive must speak with one voice in recognition contexts)
Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) (preenforcement challenges to criminal statutes permissible where credible threat of prosecution exists)
Knife Rights, Inc. v. Vance, 802 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2015) (applies credible-threat standard to non–First Amendment preenforcement claims)
Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. Salazar, 678 F.3d 935 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (courts may dismiss suits when Executive Branch recognition designates a different governing faction)
California Valley Miwok Tribe v. United States, 515 F.3d 1262 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (tribes are presumed capable of managing their own internal affairs)