A federal court ruling that favored an Alabama tribe could boost the case for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) to open a casino on its Martha's Vineyard land.
In a ruling handed down last week, a federal judge concluded that Congress intended the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to prevent state law from interfering with Indian gaming on tribal lands.
The judge in the Alabama case ruled on April 11 that the state could not restrict three casinos operated by the Poarch Band of Creek Indians on tribal lands. In an interesting twist, the judge ruled that federal law protects the gaming authority of the Poarch Band even if the type of casinos are illegal under state law, which they are in Alabama.
"The bottom line is that even if defendants are operating illegal Class III gaming at the Poarch Band casinos, (state law) does not provide the state authority to prohibit such gaming," the judge wrote. Class III gaming includes most casino games.
The Poarch Band casinos apparently use full-fledged slot machines while the state has only authorized Class II gaming, which is typically bingo, electronic or otherwise, and certain card games.
Massachusetts legalized full-fledged casinos in 2012, and the law authorizes the governor to negotiate with federally recognized Indian tribes.
In court documents filed Thursday, attorneys for the Aquinnah tribe provided a supplemental brief that includes the Alabama decision as ammunition in its battle with Massachusetts over gambling rights. The Vineyard-based tribe's contends that it can legally operate a Class II casino, essentially a high-stakes bingo hall, on its Island land without permission from the state.
"... The district court dismissed the state's complaint, concluding that Congress intended IGRA (Indian Gaming Regulatory Act) to preempt all state-law claims that 'interfere with tribal governance of gaming,'" Aquinnah lawyers wrote about the Alabama case.
The Aquinnah already have received opinions from federal agencies responsible for overseeing Indian gaming that the federal law supersedes settlement acts.
The distinction in the Alabama case may be that it doesn't involve a land settlement agreement, Ronald Rappaport, an attorney for the town of Aquinnah, which opposes a tribe casino, said.
Rappaport said he could not comment further until he has a chance to review the Alabama decision.
Massachusetts and town officials have argued that the land settlement between the Aquinnah and the state, reached in 1983 and codified by Congress in 1987, requires the tribe to follow state and local laws.
Brad Puffer, a spokesman for Attorney General Martha Coakley's office, which is handling the case for the state, declined comment on the ongoing litigation.
Scott Crowell, the tribe's lead attorney in the case, did not return calls seeking comment.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Dennis Saylor heard oral arguments in the dispute between the state and the Aquinnah over whether state or federal court has jurisdiction in the case. Saylor took the case under advisement and has not yet issued a ruling.
In December, Gov. Deval Patrick filed suit in state court seeking to block a Class II casino on the island after tribe leaders made their plans public. The suit, which was brought before a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, alleges a breach of contract.
That triggered a move by the tribe to have the case heard in federal court, which the Aquinnah believe has jurisdiction because of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Tribe leaders have support from the tribe's general membership to use an unfinished community center on the island as a gambling hall. The tribe moved in that direction after the Patrick administration repeatedly refused to negotiate a compact with the tribe similar to the deal reached with the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe for a Taunton casino.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment