Advertisement

April 17, 2014

"Reservation Shopping" Circa 2013 Re: Gaming

The term “reservation shopping” has been coined by various anticasino groups, some local governments, and even some gaming tribes to disparage efforts of non-gaming tribes to acquire lands in trust for gaming. Some of the tribes seeking new land are landless, while others have tribal land that is unsuited for gaming development for various reasons. The term is intended to be pejorative.

Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act generally prohibits Indian gaming from being conducted on lands taken into trust after that law was enacted in October 1988. However, it also authorizes gaming on newly acquired trust lands if tribes can satisfy one of three specific exceptions or otherwise qualify for off-reservation gaming through a difficult two-step process. 

The exceptions provide a right for any tribe to conduct gaming on land taken into trust as part of one of the following: (1) settlement of a land claim, (2) initial reservation of a tribe newly recognized by the Interior Department’s administrative federal acknowledgement process, or (3) restoration of tribal lands to a tribe that once had recognition, lost its recognition for any reason, and subsequently had its recognition restored. Invocation of these exceptions often has been contested on specific factual disputes, with mixed results depending on the facts of the case. 

The off-reservation provisions of Section 20 can be pursued by tribes seeking gaming approval for land that is not covered by the three exceptions, and those provisions establish a process through which off-reservation lands can be approved. The process requires the Interior Secretary to determine that the land acquisition is (a) in the best interest of the tribe and (b) not detrimental to the surrounding community, followed by concurrence of the Governor. Gubernatorial concurrence – which essentially amounts to a veto power – is purely discretionary and not subject to any standard of reasonableness or equity. 

The term “reservation shopping” usually is applied to efforts of tribes seeking off-reservation approvals. Until recently, the off-reservation process was rarely invoked. Indeed, prior to the current Administration’s taking office, only a handful of such applications were successful. That is changing with recent positive Secretarial determinations, including those for two California tribes. One of them, the North Fork Band of Pomo Indians, has received final approval by the Governor and state legislature, but the state approvals are now the subject of a referendum petition proposing to overturn the state approval through a statewide referendum. 

The off-reservation process remains controversial, but recent developments may add fuel to the opposing fires. Call it “Reservation Shopping 2013 Style.”

Two tribes recently elevated the stakes by proposing to cross state lines for tribal development, and – in the process – have introduced a whole new chapter to the “reservation shopping” story. 

The Delaware Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma virtually forfeited its right to conduct any gaming within its historic territory in the northeastern part of the state due to a bruising legal battle in federal courts with the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma that resulted in the Delawares losing their federal recognition. The Tribe was subsequently allowed to reorganize and gain new federal recognition as part of an agreement giving Cherokee a veto over any trust land acquisition and any gaming development within a large portion of the state. With no opportunity to develop gaming and realize the economic self-sufficiency already achieved by its tribal neighbors, Delaware has announced that it intends to relocate its tribal offices to historic Delaware land in Kansas. It remains to be seen whether the Tribe will be able to secure the necessary approvals at the federal and state levels. 

The second tribe looking for cross-border casino development is the Catawba Indian Nation of South Carolina. Unable to develop a casino due to prohibitory state laws, Catawba officials recently commenced discussions with North Carolina officials to move their proposed gaming site from York County, South Carolina, across the state border to Cleveland County, North Carolina, adjacent to Interstate 85 and convenient to gamblers in both states. If North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory is willing to negotiate a gaming compact with the Catawba and the Interior Secretary renders the necessary determination, the Catawba will have broken new ground in Indian gaming. The existing plans reportedly call for a casino and resort with many amenities and significant financial concessions to North Carolina that could be as high as $100 million annually. 

These two actions are in the future and will depend on groundbreaking federal approvals. However, the two tribes are serious and appear to have financial backing that will allow them to press their cause. Success by either will likely generate consideration of cross-border proposals from tribes in other states that similarly have encountered legal and political barriers to gaming development. In any event, a new chapter for Indian gaming may have begun.

© Copyright 2014 Dickinson Wright PLLC

About the Author

Member

PROMINENT ASSIGNMENTS

Expertise in development of economic projects, including casinos, for Indian tribes in America and Canada

Served as legal counsel to both unrecognized and federally recognized Indian tribes, providing counsel on Indian gaming law and Indian lands as well as a wide range of state and federal taxation issues unique to Indian tribes, individuals and lands

Served as Special Counsel for Gaming to the cities of Detroit; Buffalo, NY; Battle Creek, MI; Lima, OH; Middleborough, MA; and Barstow, CA as well as Calhoun County, MI, DeKalb County, IL, and seven...

202-659-6928

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.