163 F. Supp. 3d 769
E.D. Cal.2016Background
- Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe (Plaintiff) negotiated and signed a Class III gaming compact with California Governor Jerry Brown on August 30, 2012; the Compact required legislative ratification under California law.
- The Department of the Interior took Tribe land into trust for gaming in May 2013 after the Governor concurred that gaming was appropriate.
- The Compact was transmitted to the California Legislature but the Legislature took little-to-no action (AB 1098 was referred to the Senate Rules Committee and not brought to a vote); the Compact expired July 1, 2014.
- Plaintiff sued under IGRA (25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)), alleging the State failed to negotiate in good faith by permitting legislative inaction to defeat the Compact; Plaintiff sought the statutory remedies, including an order to conclude a compact within 60 days.
- The State moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing (1) California’s § 98005 waiver of sovereign immunity does not cover legislative inaction, (2) subjecting the legislature to IGRA’s mandate violates the Tenth Amendment, and (3) legislative delay/inaction is not bad faith under IGRA.
- The court granted Plaintiff’s motion, denied the State’s, held the waiver covers the State, found no Tenth Amendment bar, and concluded the Legislature’s extended inaction amounted to lack of good faith; the court ordered the parties to follow IGRA’s remedial process, including concluding a compact within 60 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does California’s waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity (Cal. Gov. Code § 98005) permit suit when alleged bad faith is legislative inaction? | § 98005 waives the State’s immunity for IGRA negotiation claims; waiver applies to the State as a whole, not just the Governor. | Waiver applies only to Governor conduct; legislative inaction falls outside the waiver. | Waiver covers the State generally; Eleventh Amendment does not bar this suit. |
| Does applying IGRA’s negotiation mandate to the Legislature violate the Tenth Amendment? | IGRA does not compel states to implement federal programs; states may decline gaming and, if they refuse to negotiate, the Secretary governs—so no Tenth Amendment violation. | Subjecting the Legislature to IGRA duties would unduly intrude on state sovereignty and internal governance. | No Tenth Amendment violation: IGRA’s regime is cooperative and does not commandeer legislative processes. |
| Did Plaintiff satisfy IGRA’s preconditions (180-day rule) to sue? | The negotiations beginning in Aug 2012 and subsequent requests (including after trust acquisition in May 2013) satisfy the 180‑day requirement. | Plaintiff should have made a new request to negotiate after legislative inaction before suing. | The court found the 180‑day prerequisite met given the 2012–2013 negotiation timeline and transmission to the Legislature. |
| Does prolonged legislative inaction constitute lack of good faith under IGRA? | Yes — prolonged inaction, absence of articulated concerns or counterproposals, and delay until the Compact expired demonstrate objective bad faith. | Legislative inaction is lawful under state process; delay alone does not prove bad faith and IGRA standards from NLRA are inapplicable. | The court held the Legislature’s extended inaction constituted failure to negotiate in good faith; state failed to meet its burden. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (federal statute cannot abrogate state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment)
- Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (federal commandeering of state officers violates the Tenth Amendment)
- Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. Schwarzenegger, 602 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir.) (IGRA good-faith negotiation evaluated objectively)
- In re Indian Gaming Related Cases, 331 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.) (IGRA as cooperative federalism; delay alone not always bad faith)
- Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma v. State of Oklahoma, 37 F.3d 1422 (10th Cir.) (IGRA contemplates failure to reach compacts and Secretary’s fallback role)
- Biggs v. Wilson, 1 F.3d 1537 (9th Cir.) (application of federal law to states can implicate state-law procedures but not violate Tenth Amendment)