Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6148
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) received ~485 acres (the "Settlement Lands") via a 1983 Settlement Agreement implemented by Congress in the Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1987 (the "Federal Act"). The Federal Act provides that those lands "shall be subject to the civil and criminal laws, ordinances, and jurisdiction of the Commonwealth . . . and the [Town] . . . (including those laws and regulations which prohibit or regulate the conduct of bingo or any other game of chance)."
- After Massachusetts legalized expanded gaming in 2011, the Tribe adopted a gaming ordinance and sought NIGC approval for Class II gaming on the Settlement Lands; the NIGC approved the ordinance and the DOI opined gaming was not prohibited.
- Massachusetts and local plaintiffs sued to stop the Tribe from operating a gaming facility without state licensing; the district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs, holding (1) IGRA did not apply because the Tribe had not exercised sufficient governmental power over the Settlement Lands, and (2) even if IGRA applied, the Federal Act’s language preserved state gaming authority and was not impliedly repealed by IGRA.
- The First Circuit reversed: it found the Tribe exercised sufficient governmental power under IGRA (pointing to housing, health clinic, ordinances, intergovernmental agreements, tribal court, conservation and public safety programs), and held that IGRA partially repealed the Federal Act in relevant part—IGRA’s federal framework for Indian gaming supersedes conflicting portions of the Federal Act.
- The court rejected the contention that the Federal Act’s parenthetical (referencing bingo and games of chance) operated as a savings clause preserving state gaming authority against later federal law; it read the parenthetical as a contemporaneous clarification of existing state jurisdiction at the time of enactment, not a bar on later federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IGRA applies to the Settlement Lands (tribe must have jurisdiction and exercise governmental power) | Commonwealth/Town: Tribe lacks sufficient actual manifestations of governmental power on the Settlement Lands | Tribe: Has concrete manifestations (ordinances, housing, health, intergovernmental agreements, tribal court, public safety) satisfying IGRA | Held for Tribe: Tribe exercises more than sufficient governmental power; IGRA applies |
| Whether IGRA impliedly repeals the Federal Act’s provision subjecting Settlement Lands to state gaming laws | Commonwealth/Town: Federal Act’s parenthetical specifically preserves state authority over gaming and prevents IGRA from authorizing Class II gaming absent state approval | Tribe: Parenthetical merely clarifies existing state jurisdiction at enactment and does not bar later federal law (IGRA) from applying | Held for Tribe: IGRA partially repeals the conflicting portions of the Federal Act; the parenthetical is not a savings clause preserving state primacy over gaming |
| Whether the Federal Act’s language is a savings clause like Maine’s (Passamaquoddy) | Commonwealth/Town: Argue parenthetical functions as a savings clause preventing later federal laws from applying | Tribe: Parenthetical is not a savings clause; Congress knew how to draft explicit savings clauses (e.g., Maine) but did not do so here | Held for Tribe: Parenthetical does not operate as a Passamaquoddy-style savings clause |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by not joining the NIGC as a required party | Tribe: NIGC’s absence could create inconsistent obligations | Commonwealth/Town: NIGC not necessary | Held for Commonwealth/Town: No abuse—no concrete examples of inconsistent obligations shown |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) (Supreme Court decision prompting Congress to enact IGRA by limiting state civil regulation of tribal gaming)
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014) (discusses IGRA’s purpose adopting federal framework for tribal gaming)
- Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Rhode Island, 19 F.3d 685 (1st Cir. 1994) (held IGRA impliedly repealed portions of a prior settlement act limiting tribal gaming jurisdiction)
- Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Maine, 75 F.3d 784 (1st Cir. 1996) (held a Maine settlement act’s explicit savings clause precluded later federal laws from applying absent specific congressional intent)