328 F. Supp. 3d 1033
E.D. Cal.2018Background
- Club One Casino and The Deuce Lounge (Plaintiffs) sued under the APA challenging the DOI's Secretarial Procedures that permitted the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians (North Fork) to conduct Class III gaming on a 305.49-acre Madera Site taken into trust for the Tribe.
- North Fork applied for fee‑to‑trust under the IRA and for the IGRA two‑part determination; the Secretary and the California Governor (initially) approved the two‑part determination and a compact was negotiated and later ratified by the Legislature but defeated by referendum.
- The United States took the Madera Site into trust in 2013; the Secretary issued Secretarial Procedures in July 2016 allowing Class III gaming without a Tribal‑State compact after a court‑supervised remedial process under IGRA § 2710(d)(7).
- Plaintiffs argued the Secretary unlawfully prescribed procedures without first determining that North Fork actually had territorial jurisdiction over the Madera Site (and separately argued the IRA fee‑to‑trust violates the Tenth Amendment and that Secretarial Procedures conflict with California law).
- The court held the fee‑to‑trust determination shifts at least some jurisdiction to the tribe, that land held in trust is "Indian land," and that North Fork had jurisdiction and exercised sufficient governmental power for IGRA purposes; it denied Plaintiffs' summary judgment and granted the federal defendants'.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Secretary erred in issuing Secretarial Procedures because Tribe lacked territorial jurisdiction over Madera Site for IGRA | Land remains under California territorial jurisdiction unless the State expressly ceded jurisdiction; fee‑to‑trust does not confer jurisdiction for IGRA | Fee‑to‑trust under the IRA shifts some jurisdiction to the federal government and tribe; trust status makes the land "Indian land" and links the tribe to the site | Secretary did not err: land taken into trust suffices to show the tribe "has jurisdiction" over the Indian land for IGRA purposes |
| Whether Plaintiffs can challenge the constitutionality (Tenth Amendment) of the fee‑to‑trust decision here | IRA fee‑to‑trust unconstitutionally diminishes state territorial jurisdiction; Plaintiffs can vindicate state interest | Fee‑to‑trust is not challenged here; Plaintiffs lack standing to vindicate the State's territorial interests in this action | Court declined to decide; fee‑to‑trust constitutionality not before it and Plaintiffs lack standing to litigate the state's territorial divestment |
| Whether Secretarial Procedures are inconsistent with California law because no compact exists | Secretarial Procedures are not a Tribal‑State compact and thus conflict with California constitutional/state law limiting gaming | IGRA remedial scheme contemplates Secretarial Procedures as the enforcement mechanism; California law (and waiver statutes) reflect that remedial framework | Secretarial Procedures are consistent with IGRA and California law as part of the remedial process; not invalid for lack of a compact |
Key Cases Cited
- Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1989) (discussing plenary congressional power over Indian affairs)
- City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197 (U.S. 2005) (describing §5 of the IRA as a route to reestablish tribal authority over territory)
- Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings County, 532 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1976) (treatment of lands taken into trust under IRA vis‑à‑vis state regulation)
- Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc. v. United States, 841 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2016) (holding fee‑to‑trust shifts some state authority and defining tribal/federal jurisdiction over trust lands)
- Commonwealth v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, 853 F.3d 618 (1st Cir. 2017) (analyzing "having jurisdiction" and "exercising governmental power" under IGRA)
- Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California, 789 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding collateral attacks on tribal status/fee‑to‑trust belong in APA review of the BIA decision)
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1996) (limiting Congress's abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment)