Federal Law, State Policy, and Indian Gaming

This Article will set forth the legal authorization and the economic success of Indian gaming by asking and answering two rhetorical questions: What makes Indian gaming lawful? and What makes Indian gaming successful? This Article will conclude with the observation that Indian gaming exists almost entirely at the mercy of state governments. It will argue that, while Indian gaming began as a cross-border issue, it no longer has those features. Indeed, it has been transformed into the very antithesis of a cross-border issue, a political issue that is addressed almost entirely in the sphere of state political processes. The issue no longer spans borders, but is an internal state political issue. This Article will then explain the ramifications of this transformation both for federal Indian law and policy and for those who wish to study the development and resolution of cross-border problems

Reconsidering the Commission’s Treatment of Tribal Courts

Since the U.S. Sentencing Commission first enacted the federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Guidelines have treated tribal courts in a manner that is impossible to reconcile with other modem federal policies of respect for tribal self-determination and self-governance. In refusing to count tribal convictions for purposes of routine calculation of criminal history, the Commission has disrespected tribal courts. The Commission\u27s tribal courts policy is anachronistic and out of step with modem efforts to support tribal courts. The Commission should amend the guidelines to reflect the principle that misdemeanor convictions from tribal courts are entitled to the same level of respect as misdemeanor convictions from state, county, and municipal courts

Agency Culture and Conflict: Federal Implementation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by the National Indian Gaming Commission, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Department of Justice

Indian gaming provides a lens through which to consider the implications of divided federal executive power. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is implemented by at least three federal agencies, each of which has somewhat different interests. Moreover, none of these agencies is monolithic and each must reconcile competing interests within its own domain. In examining the culture of three federal agencies, the author seeks to shed light on divided executive branch governance. The article briefly addresses three different issues: the \u27independence\u27 of an independent agency, the NIGC, which lacks litigating authority; the problem with shared subject matter jurisdiction by DOJ and NIGC over game classification, and shared decision making by NIGC and DOI on Indian lands questions. The author concludes that divided federal power creates substantial coordination problems at the federal level. These problems often prevent the federal government from speaking with one clear voice that would generate deference to executive power, and sometimes prevent the exercise of executive action. If governmental power in Indian affairs is a zero sum game, one clear consequence of divided federal power is increased tribal sovereignty

Indian Gaming – The Next 25 Years

Testimony of Kevin K. Washburn Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs United States Department of the Interior Before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Oversight Hearin

The Mechanics of Indian Gaming Management Contract Approval

The National Indian Gaming Commission\u27s management contract review process is complicated, time-consuming and governed by detailed regulations. This article explains how the process actually works within the Commission and addresses some of the common issues that arise

Natural Resources Journal & New Mexico Law Review, School of Law Annual Report 2010 - 2011

The annual report for the University of New Mexico School of Law Natural Resources Journal & New Mexico Law Review for the period July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. Relevant information pulled from full School of Law Annual Report

Recurring Issues in Indian Gaming Compact Approval

Achieving agreement between a state and a tribe, and then achieving ratification of that agreement through state and tribal legislative processes, are challenging endeavors. Failing to account for the need for federal approval can undermine the entire negotiation process. The purpose of this article is to highlight several recurring problem areas that can place compact approval at risk. These include the requirement in IGRA that a compact avoid issues that are not germane to gaming,that the compact avoid regulating Class II gaming,which is beyond state authority, and the requirementthat the state avoid expanding its reach over ancillary services and spaces that are not used for gaming

Testimony on the Regulation of Indian Gaming, Oversight Hearing on the [NIGC] Minimum Internal Control Standards, Before the United States House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, 109th Congress, 2nd Session

State governments have an inherent conflict of interest in the regulation of Indian gaming. Strict regulation of Indian gaming can be good for the long term health of the industry, but may impact short term revenues. States have a strong short term interest in maximizing gaming revenue. Tribal governments should bear the primary responsibility for regulating Indian gaming. However, tribal regulators also have a weakness, namely, a myopia to the interests of other tribes and the national interests of the Indian gaming industry. Federal regulators can best protect the integrity of the industry nationally and ought to have a strong oversight role. Federal regulators must support the independence of tribal gaming commissions within tribal governments and must remain vigilant against regulatory capture of tribal commissions. Congress should shore up regulatory authority over Class III Indian gaming

The Legacy of Bryan v. Itasca County: How an Erroneous 147CountyTaxNoticeHelpedBringTribes147 County Tax Notice Helped Bring Tribes 200 Billion in Indian Gaming Revenue

This Article places Bryan v. Itasca County in historical context and gives credit where credit is due. From the perspective of three decades, it describes the litigation and its ramifications, and highlights the work of the legal services attorneys who brought Indian tribes this landmark victory. Part I briefly describes the litigation through the state supreme court. Part II discusses, in much greater detail, the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Part III analyzes the unanimous Supreme Court opinion reversing the state courts and describes the breathtaking scope of the opinion, as well as its implications. Part IV briefly describes the development of Indian gaming in the years following Bryan through and beyond the important decision in Cabazon. Part V offers some insights from this important episode in American legal history