Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah)
144 F. Supp. 3d 152
D. Mass.2015Background
- The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) holds ~485 acres (Settlement Lands) taken into trust after a 1983 settlement, codified by the Massachusetts Settlement Act (1987), which provides those lands are subject to Massachusetts civil and criminal law "including those laws ... which prohibit or regulate ... bingo or any other game of chance."
- Tribe sought to conduct gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and adopted a tribal gaming ordinance; NIGC issued letters approving the ordinance to the extent consistent with IGRA and advised the Tribe its lands were eligible for gaming under IGRA.
- Massachusetts requires a state gaming license for any gaming facility; the Tribe has no state license.
- Commonwealth, Town of Aquinnah, and AGHCA sued for breach of the Settlement Agreement and declaratory relief; Tribe removed to federal court and counterclaimed.
- At summary judgment the threshold questions were: (1) whether IGRA applies to the Settlement Lands (requiring the Tribe both to have jurisdiction and to exercise governmental power over the lands); and (2) whether IGRA impliedly repealed the Massachusetts Settlement Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Tribe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Tribe "have jurisdiction" over the Settlement Lands so IGRA can apply? | Settlement Act grants state jurisdiction but not exclusively; Tribe lacks exclusive claim; state retains regulatory authority. | Tribe argues Settlement Act is non-exclusive and it retains sufficient jurisdiction; thus IGRA can apply. | Held: Granting jurisdiction prong satisfied (non-exclusive grant is enough). |
| Does the Tribe "exercise governmental power" over the Settlement Lands so IGRA can apply? | Tribe lacks concrete manifestations of authority: town provides police, fire, EMS; tribal programs are limited or unfunded; no tribal law enforcement with full authority. | Tribe asserts it provides governmental services, enacted ordinances, and has intergovernmental agreements demonstrating robust governmental power. | Held: Denied — Tribe failed to show sufficient concrete manifestations of governmental power; IGRA does not apply. |
| If IGRA would otherwise apply, did IGRA impliedly repeal the Massachusetts Settlement Act? | Settlement Act contains explicit, gaming-specific language (parenthetical) that constitutes a federal prohibition of gaming on these lands and thus fits IGRA's exemption; statutes can coexist. | Tribe contends Narragansett supports implied repeal where statutes conflict and IGRA should control gaming rules. | Held: IGRA did not impliedly repeal the Massachusetts Settlement Act; the Settlement Act’s gaming-specific language triggers IGRA’s exemption and both statutes can be given effect. |
| Can the Tribe operate a gaming facility on the Settlement Lands without state licensing? | No — Settlement Act and state law prohibit operating gaming without state license. | Tribe argues IGRA preempts or supersedes the Settlement Act, allowing tribal gaming without state license. | Held: No — Tribe cannot operate a gaming facility on the Settlement Lands without complying with Commonwealth and Town laws. |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) (Supreme Court decision prompting Congress to regulate Indian gaming nationally)
- Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 19 F.3d 685 (1st Cir. 1994) (IGRA applies only where tribe both has jurisdiction and exercises governmental power; applied implied-repeal analysis)
- Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Maine, 75 F.3d 784 (1st Cir. 1996) (savings clause in Maine Settlement Act prevented IGRA from applying; strong presumption against implied repeal)