230 Cal. App. 4th 280
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs sought to invalidate the California-Graton Tribe gaming compact, challenging tribal jurisdiction over the casino site and compliance with IGRA and the state constitution.
- The Graton Act authorized taking certain land into trust for the Graton Tribe and declared such land part of the tribe’s reservation, enabling IGRA-eligible gaming.
- Title to the casino site was transferred to the United States in trust for the Graton Tribe; the tribal gaming ordinance was approved under IGRA.
- California ratified the compact in 2012; litigation ensued after construction began, with a demurrer and later summary-judgment proceedings.
- The trial court held that the Graton Tribe’s jurisdiction and the compact complied with federal law and the California Constitution, affirming the governor’s authorization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does IGRA authorize gaming on trust land for Graton? | Stop the Casino argues Graton lacks jurisdiction. | Brown argues IGRA approval governs gaming; trust status suffices. | IGRA compliance confirms authority for gaming. |
| Does the Graton Act confer tribal jurisdiction over the trust land? | Graton Act does not expressly grant jurisdiction. | Act and federal recognition confer reservation status and jurisdiction. | Graton Tribe exercises jurisdiction over its reservation; jurisdiction exists. |
| Is consent to tribal jurisdiction implicit in the compact and cession laws? | Consent is not explicit; state must consent to transfer. | Compact ratification constitutes implicit consent and reflects sovereign agreement. | Compact recognizes and consents to tribal jurisdiction consistent with law. |
| Does the Enclaves Clause bar federal jurisdiction without state consent? | Enclaves Clause requires state consent for removal of jurisdiction. | Enclave clause addresses exclusive jurisdiction; Indian lands involve accommodation between tribes, federal, and state interests. | Enclaves Clause does not bar non-exclusive tribal jurisdiction here. |
| Is the action subject to preemption or sovereign-immunity limitations on federal officials? | Federal defendants’ joinder was necessary; sovereign immunity bars relief against them. | Joinder was properly limited; federal officials’ actions were valid under federal law. | Sovereign-immunity concerns do not defeat the validity of the compact. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Roseville v. Norton, 219 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (taking land in trust confers tribal jurisdiction over reservation)
- Coso Energy Developers v. County of Inyo, 122 Cal.App.4th 1512 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (enclaves and jurisdiction in federal-state-tribal context)
- Carcieri v. Kempthorne, 497 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2007) (federal recognition of tribes and reservation status)
- Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (S. Ct. 2009) (reaffirmed federal authority over Indian affairs)
- California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) (tribal sovereignty and state regulatory authority on reservations)
- Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959) (tribal sovereignty over members and territory)
- Artichoke Joe’s v. Norton, 216 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (E.D. Cal. 2002) (IGRA cooperative federalism and tribal gaming regulation)