945 F. Supp. 2d 391
W.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Plaintiffs challenge the legality of Seneca Nation of Indians (SNI) gambling on the Buffalo Parcel under IGRA and SNSA,
- This is the third suit by largely the same plaintiffs seeking a declaration that Indian gaming in Buffalo is unlawful, citing APA challenges to agency actions,
- Defendants revised IGRA interpretation to exclude restricted fee lands from the after-acquired land prohibition, leading to SNI’s Buffalo Parcel gaming approval,
- Buffalo Parcel (≈9 acres) was purchased with SNSA funds and placed in restricted fee status, triggering IGRA and SNSA interplay,
- Prior CACGEC II decisions held the Parcel is Indian country with jurisdiction and analyzed whether it fell within the land-claim settlement exception; this opinion reviews those conclusions in light of new regulations and interpretations
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buffalo Parcel is Indian country and Indian lands | Plaintiffs (CACGEC II) argued Buffalo Parcel not Indian lands | Defendants contended Buffalo Parcel is Indian country and Indian lands under IGRA | Parcel is Indian country and Indian lands |
| Whether Buffalo Parcel is gaming eligible under IGRA section 20 | Section 20 applies to lands acquired after 1988, including restricted fee lands | Section 20 applies to lands held in trust; revised interpretation excludes restricted fee lands from the ban | Section 20 does not apply to restricted fee lands here; Buffalo Parcel gaming is not prohibited under Section 20 |
| Whether SNSA's land-claim settlement exception applies | Buffalo Parcel acquired with SNSA funds falls within settlement exception | No clear fit under the settlement-of-a-land-claim exception | Issue moot; no reliance on this exception needed to resolve the case |
| Whether the DOI/NIGC interpretations of Section 20 are permissible and entitled to deference | Challenge to DOI's and NIGC's changed readings | Changed interpretation is permissible and reflects congressional intent; deference urged | Court finds the revised interpretation reasonable and entitled to deference under Chevron, supporting the outcome |
| Whether the case should be dismissed or the motion for summary judgment denied | Plaintiffs seek reversal and summary judgment | Defendants seek dismissal and uphold agency actions | Plaintiffs' motion denied; case dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Artichoke Joe’s v. Norton, 353 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2003) (IGRA framework and scope of tribal gaming regulate)
- City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197 (S. Ct. 2005) (relevant to Indian country and sovereignty considerations)
- Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (S. Ct. 2009) (limits on Secretary trust authority and tribal eligibility)
- Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (S. Ct. 1990) (statutory interpretation and Chevron applicability)
- Sac & Fox Tribe v. Licklider, 576 F.2d 145 (8th Cir. 1978) (historical understanding of Indian lands and sovereignty)