October 25, 2020

Volume X, Number 299

Advertisement

October 23, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Indian Nations Law Update - Paycheck Protection Program

Why Paycheck Protection Program should be opened to tribal gaming enterprises

View as a PDF

On March 27, 2020, Congress enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) in response to the economic crisis caused by 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Title I of the CARES Act, the Keeping Americans Paid and Employed Act, creates a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) under Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act to fund forgivable loans to businesses, including tribal business concerns, employing not more than 500 persons at any single location. 

The PPP, supported with a $349 billion appropriation, is a central pillar of Congress’ effort to help wage earners survive the COVID-19 crisis and to avert a collapse of the U.S. economy. Unfortunately, in an interim final rule issued April 2, 2020, the Small Business Administration (SBA) incorporated into the PPP regulations a 1953 rule, now found at 13 C.F.R. § 120.110(g), that bars Section 7(a) loans to gambling businesses. 

Many tribes rely on revenues from gaming enterprises operating pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 to fund government services. Tribal gaming enterprises are often major employers in the rural areas in which they operate. For the following reasons, SBA should reverse course and clarify that gaming enterprises that otherwise meet PPP criteria are eligible borrowers: 

  1. Because section 1114 of the CARES Act expressly authorizes the SBA to adopt regulations to implement the PPP, SBA is bound by existing regulations only to the extent that they incorporate statutory requirements. 

  2. Because neither the Keeping Americans Paid and Employed Act nor Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act, to which the PPP is appended, prohibits Section 7(a) loans to gambling businesses, the Section 120.110(g) gambling prohibition need not - and should not - be included in the Keeping Americans Paid and Employed Act regulations.

  3. The Section 120.110(g) prohibition against loans to gambling businesses originated in a Loan Policy Statement adopted by the Loan Policy Board of the Small Business Administration on November 16, 1953 (see 19 Fed. Reg. 5440, August 26, 1954). The radically changed social and economic status of gaming in the U.S. since 1953 provides relevant context in assessing whether the prohibition should be extended beyond its original purposes. 

  4. Tribal gaming enterprises, unlike other gaming businesses, advance a congressionally declared federal policy “to provide a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments.” Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1).  

  5. While traditional Section 7(a) loans are intended to broadly support small businesses by providing capital for “plant acquisition, construction, conversion, or expansion, including the acquisition of land, material, supplies, equipment, and working capital,” their impact on employment is necessarily indirect, prospective and speculative.  

  6. By contrast, the primary purpose of the Paycheck Protection Program and the Keeping Americans Paid and Employed Act, as their titles make clear, is specifically to protect the livelihoods of currently employed but imperiled wage earners in a time of dire emergency. 

  7. Persons employed by gaming enterprises are not less deserving of assistance than individuals employed in other sectors of the U.S. economy. Their need is no less acute. The dollars they spend are just as important to their communities. There is no justification for a rule that discriminates against them.  

As of April 8, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration had proposed that Congress supplement the PPP with an additional $250 billion. If the SBA fails to act in the meantime, Congress should clarify the eligibility of tribal gaming enterprises otherwise meeting PPP criteria. 

Copyright © 2020 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 101
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

John Clancy Environment & Energy Attorney
Shareholder

John Clancy is a shareholder and the leader of the Environmental Strategies and Energy Strategies Practice Groups.

John provides environmental and energy-related services to a wide variety of entities, including industrial, commercial, tribal, municipal and trade association clients. In the environmental arena, John has represented clients with respect to a wide variety of traditional environmental issues, including brownfield redevelopment, mining and mining waste matters, solid waste landfill sitings, solid and hazardous waste site closure and site remediations, and has provided...

414-287-9256
Brian Pierson Tribal Lawyer Godfrey Kahn Law Firm
Shareholder

Brian Pierson leads Godfrey & Kahn's Indian Nations Law Team. Brian clerked for federal district judge Myron L. Gordon before entering private practice. Brian has more than 20 years experience representing Indian tribes, beginning with his successful representation of Chippewa Indians in federal court litigation to prevent racially-motivated interference with treaty-reserved, off-reservation fishing rights.

As leader of the firm's Indian Nations team, Brian's primary objective is to draw on the knowledge and experience of G&K's attorneys to assist tribes in formulating and implementing strategies that strengthen tribal sovereignty, with a particular focus on business development, environmental protection, renewable energy and housing development. Brian also frequently advises tribes on tribal constitutional, ordinance and governance matters. Brian has worked on Indian land title records reform with the National Congress of American Indians and leasing reform with the National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC). A frequent conference speaker and author on Indian law issues, Brian's 2010 articles on Indian country housing development and the Indian Nonintercourse Act were published in the American Bar Association's Affordable Housing Journal and the Federal Lawyer Magazine, respectively. He is the author of the NAIHC's Indian Country Housing Development Handbook.

414.287.9456
Advertisement
Advertisement