Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14196
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Tribe challenges CT personal property tax on non-Indian vendors leasing slot machines to Foxwoods on-reservation in Ledyard.
- Vendors AC Coin and WMS leased machines; Tribe persuaded them to stop paying taxes and modified leases to exclude tax liability by Tribe.
- Tax is generally-applicable and collected by towns to fund municipal services; tax incidence falls on non-Indian owners.
- District court held tax preempted by Indian Trader Statutes and IGRA; Tribe sought summary judgment while Town/State sought dismissal.
- Court addresses standing, Tax Injunction Act, comity, and merits of preemption and Bracker balancing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of the Tribe to sue | Tribe alleges constitutional sovereignty infringement. | Ledyard and State contend lack of injury in fact. | Tribe has standing. |
| Whether TIA bars federal jurisdiction | Moe Tribe exception to TIA applies. | TIA bars state-tax suits unless tribal exception applies. | TIA does not bar the action. |
| Comity preclusion of federal jurisdiction | Comity should not bar a tribal challenge. | Comity may bar federal intervention in state tax matters. | Comity does not preclude jurisdiction. |
| Preemption by Indian Trader Statutes | Statutes preempt taxes on transactions with Indians. | Statutes do not expressly/implicitly preempt this tax. | Indian Trader Statutes do not preempt the tax. |
| Preemption by IGRA and Bracker balancing | IGRA preempts state taxation of gaming-related activities; Bracker favors Tribe. | IGRA does not preempt; Bracker balances in favor of state interests. | IGRA does not preempt; Bracker balancing favors State interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) (framework for Bracker balancing of federal, tribal, and state interests)
- Milhelm Attea & Bros. v. Dept. of Taxation & Finance of N.Y., 512 U.S. 61 (1994) (indian trader statutes require case-by-case Bracker analysis; regulation of transactions with Indians)
- Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163 (1989) (preemption inquiry; state taxes on generally applicable activity on reservation analyzed via Bracker framework)
- Oneida Nation of N.Y. v. Cuomo, 645 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2011) (discussion of Bracker and state taxation on reservation economies)
- Barona Band of Mission Indians v. Yee, 528 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2008) (preemption and comity considerations in tribal taxation cases under IGRA/Indian trader statutes)
- Ramah Navajo Sch. Bd. v. Bureau of Revenue of N.M., 458 U.S. 832 (1982) (illustrates Bracker-type balancing and federal-tribal sovereignty principles)