42 F.4th 1024
9th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiff tribes (Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me‑Wuk Indians, Blue Lake Rancheria, Chemehuevi, Hopland Band of Pomo, Robinson Rancheria) negotiated with California to replace 1999 Class III gaming compacts; negotiations began in 2015 and produced many draft compacts but no agreement.
- California repeatedly insisted on compact provisions requiring tribal enforcement of state spousal/child‑support orders, extensive state‑style environmental review and intergovernmental agreements, and adoption of California tort law with waivers of tribal sovereign immunity.
- Tribes sued in January 2019 under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), alleging California failed to negotiate in good faith; the district court granted summary judgment for the tribes, finding per se bad faith for the support provision and applying a “meaningful concessions” test to other disputed provisions.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed on different grounds: it held §2710(d)(3)(C)’s seven negotiation topics are exhaustive and the State’s off‑list demands (family, environmental, tort) were not "directly related to the operation of gaming activities."
- The court held that insisting on topics well outside IGRA’s authorized list constitutes lack of good faith and directed the parties into IGRA’s remedial framework; it rejected applying the district court’s "meaningful concessions" test to off‑list, non‑revenue provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California’s requested provisions exceeded IGRA’s permissible negotiation topics (25 U.S.C. §2710(d)(3)(C)) | California demanded off‑list terms (support enforcement, broad environmental control, statewide tort law) that are not directly related to gaming | Those provisions are sufficiently related to gaming (e.g., wages to garnish, construction projects, injuries on casino property) | Held: §2710(d)(3)(C) is exhaustive; the disputed family, environmental, and tort provisions are not "directly related" and exceed IGRA’s list |
| Whether seeking off‑list topics is per se evidence of lack of good faith (triggering IGRA remedy) | Off‑list negotiation demonstrates state overreach and per se lack of good faith | A showing of off‑list demands is not dispositive; the burden‑shifting framework and statutory good‑faith factors still allow the State to rebut | Held: When a State insists on topics well outside IGRA’s authorized list, it has not negotiated in good faith; remedial process is triggered |
| Whether the district court’s "meaningful concessions" test applies to non‑revenue off‑list demands | Tribes: CA offered inadequate concessions; meaningful concessions requirement supports bad‑faith finding | CA: offered concessions and meaningful concessions standard should govern | Held: Meaningful concessions doctrine applies only in the taxation/revenue‑sharing context; it does not excuse off‑list negotiating demands |
| Whether the court must remand for application of §2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)(I) good‑faith factors so State can rebut | Tribes: no need—off‑list demands show bad faith | CA: must be permitted to attempt to show good faith under statutory factors (public interest, safety, etc.) | Held: Majority rejects applying those factors to justify off‑list demands; dissent would remand for factor‑based analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. Schwarzenegger, 602 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010) (§2710(d)(3)(C) limits permissible compact subjects and list is to be read as constraining state overreach)
- In re Indian Gaming Related Cases (Coyote Valley II), 331 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2003) (upheld certain labor and revenue provisions and introduced the "meaningful concessions" analysis for revenue demands)
- California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) (states lack authority to regulate tribal gaming unless Congress provides statutory authorization)
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (2014) (defines "gaming activities" narrowly as the operations inside the gaming enterprise)
- Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (sovereign immunity limits tribal suits against states absent consent)
- McClanahan v. State Tax Comm'n of Arizona, 411 U.S. 164 (1973) (states generally lack authority to apply their laws on tribal reservations absent Congress’s consent)
- Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134 (1980) (state powers are generally subordinate to federal authority over tribes)
- Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Newsom, 919 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2019) (examining IGRA’s "directly related" limitation on compact provisions)
- Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. California, 973 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2020) (describes IGRA’s burden‑shifting framework and good‑faith litigation posture)