530 F.Supp.3d 970
E.D. Cal.2021Background
- IGRA requires states to "negotiate in good faith" with tribes to enter Class III gaming compacts and limits permissible subjects to those "directly related" to gaming operations. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d).
- California and many tribes had 1999 Class III compacts set to expire; a Compact Tribes Steering Committee (CTSC) negotiated with California from 2015–2019 to replace them.
- Five tribal plaintiffs (Chicken Ranch, Blue Lake, Chemehuevi, Hopland, Robinson) sued California and Governor Newsom in Jan. 2019, alleging the State pressed impermissible subjects (e.g., labor rules, state tort and environmental law, child/spousal support, revenue-sharing/TNGF) and an unlawful tax, i.e., bad-faith negotiation under IGRA.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and submitted a multi-volume record of negotiations (RON). The State argued the topics were permissible or negotiable with meaningful concessions; tribes argued many topics were outside IGRA’s scope and some were per se bad faith.
- The district court found the State raised topics beyond IGRA’s permitted scope (and/or required meaningful concessions that the State failed to show), concluded the State did not negotiate in good faith, and ordered the IGRA remedial process (60-day deadline to conclude a compact, then submission of final offers to a mediator).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Labor / minimum wage / anti‑discrimination provisions | State sought to impose tribal compliance with state labor/minimum wage/anti‑discrimination rules; not directly related to Class III gaming | State: employment standards at casinos are "directly related" to operation of gaming facilities and thus permissible; concessions could justify negotiation | Permissible as §2710(d)(3)(C)(vii) catch‑all if tied to casino operations; not per se bad faith, but such topics require meaningful concessions from State to avoid bad faith finding |
| Tort law (importing California tort standards) | State wanted tribes to adopt California tort standards for injuries connected to gaming — tribes: this attempts to import non‑gaming state law and alter sovereignty; potentially impermissible | State: language would only require tribal courts to apply state‑law standards, not shift jurisdiction to state courts, so it's allowed | At edge of §2710(d)(3)(C)(vii) but negotiable; not per se bad faith — however, State must provide meaningful concessions to justify it |
| Spousal and child support enforcement | State sought automatic recognition/enforcement of state support orders via tribal employer withholding — tribes: unrelated to gaming and akin to forced jurisdiction shifting; outside IGRA | State made no focused rebuttal on this point | Court: topic falls outside IGRA; seeking automatic enforcement is per se evidence of bad faith; State must overcome strong inference of bad faith (held for tribes) |
| Environmental review & intergovernmental mitigation agreements | State pushed detailed CEQA/NEPA‑style review, intergovernmental mitigation agreements and arbitration with local governments — tribes: this imposes state/local land‑use/regulatory control | State: environmental mitigation tied to gaming facility operation is permissible; did not insist on a single inflexible formula; also proposed State as mitigation counterparty | Court: environmental/mitigation demands relate to gaming facilities so negotiable under (vii) but are significant; State needed to show meaningful concessions in exchange; not per se bad faith |
| Revenue sharing / Tribal Nation Grant Fund (TNGF) | State sought continued payments to a TNGF (like prior RSTF/SDF); tribes: this is effectively taxation and must be justified | State: similar prior funds were upheld when paired with meaningful concessions; willing to negotiate fund form | Court: revenue‑sharing mechanism is within (vii) when bargained for with meaningful concessions; State failed to show specific, independent meaningful concessions; supports bad‑faith finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. Schwarzenegger, 602 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010) (IGRA limits permissible negotiation topics; improper topics evidence bad faith; meaningful concessions can rebut bad‑faith inference)
- In re Indian Gaming Related Cases (Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. California), 331 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2003) (labor representation and revenue‑sharing analysis; state concessions can justify certain out‑of‑core demands)
- Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Newsom, 919 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2019) (§2710(d)(3)(C)(vi)–(vii) are broader catch‑alls; examine nexus to gaming)
- Casino Pauma v. NLRB, 888 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2018) (NLRB/NLRA can apply to tribal casino operations — relevance to labor provisions)
- Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Nash, 972 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (D.N.M. 2013) (shifting personal‑injury jurisdiction to state courts via compact is not permitted under IGRA)
- Navajo Nation v. Dalley, 896 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2018) (similar holding that compact cannot shift jurisdiction over personal injury claims to state courts)
- Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California, 759 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (environmental mitigation and other demands must be directly related to gaming, consistent with IGRA, and exchanged for meaningful concessions)
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (2014) (definition of “class III gaming activity” as casino operations)
- Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Connecticut, 913 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir. 1990) (state’s subjective belief in legality of its demands does not excuse objectively improper negotiation demands)