123 F.4th 960
9th Cir.2024Background
- Maverick Gaming LLC, operator of casino cardrooms in Washington, challenged the legality of tribal-state gaming compacts allowing sports betting exclusively on tribal lands.
- Maverick argued these compacts violate the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act (IGRA), the Equal Protection Clause, and the Tenth Amendment.
- The Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, whose compact was specifically challenged, intervened to argue it was a necessary party that could not be joined due to sovereign immunity.
- The district court dismissed Maverick's claims, finding the Tribe was a required party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 and could not be joined because of sovereign immunity.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding that litigation could not continue “in equity and good conscience” in the Tribe's absence.
- Maverick’s efforts to limit or tailor its claims (or proposed public rights exceptions) did not change the outcome, due to the strong circuit precedent protecting tribal rights and immunity in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Tribe is a required party | The Tribe’s interests are adequately represented by the federal government, so it need not participate. | Tribe's legal and economic interests would be impaired in its absence. | Tribe is a required party due to its substantial legal interests. |
| Whether Tribe can be joined despite immunity | Tribe waived immunity by intervening in the litigation. | Tribe only intervened to move to dismiss, not waiving immunity. | Tribe retains sovereign immunity and cannot be joined. |
| Whether litigation can proceed in Tribe's absence | Case can proceed as federal and state officials can represent Tribe, and public rights exception should apply. | Prejudice to Tribe is too great; federal government cannot fully represent Tribe’s interests. | Litigation cannot proceed without Tribe per Rule 19(b), dismissal required. |
| Application of public rights exception | Enforcing administrative/constitutional law is in public interest; suit is not primarily about private gain. | The suit directly threatens sovereign tribal interests and is based on Maverick's competition, not public rights. | Public rights exception does not apply; case centers on private interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (state gaming laws cannot be enforced on tribal lands absent Congressional law)
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782 (tribes enjoy sovereign immunity, barring certain suits)
- Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 932 F.3d 843 (federal government cannot always adequately represent absent tribe's interests under Rule 19)
- Makah Indian Tribe v. Verity, 910 F.2d 555 (practical, fact-specific inquiry to determine if party is required under Rule 19)
- Am. Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Hull, 305 F.3d 1015 (when tribal compacts are challenged, tribes are required parties and case is dismissed if immunity prevents joinder)