The 9th Annual Northwest Gaming Law Summit held in Seattle last Thursday and Friday was well attended by representatives of Indian Country notwithstanding President Obama's last minute high level meeting with tribal leaders in Washington during the same time frame.
There was extensive discussion of Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of Rincon Reservation v. Schwarzenegger, in which the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals declared that California's demand for 15% of gross gaming revenues constitutes (1) an illegal tax on tribal gaming revenues and (2) a failure to negotiate in good faith. The focus was on what impact this decision will have on upcoming tribal/state compact negotiations throughout the country.
Several speakers also discussed the ongoing failure of Congress to implement a fix to the Carcieri decision, which has been the subject matter of several articles by Dennis Whittlesey in prior editions of this newsletter. What was clear from the conference speakers is that fee-to-trust issues continue to be a very hot topic in Indian Country.
However, by far the most interesting discussions surrounded the restrictions on the authority of the National Indian Gaming Commission over tribal gaming operations and the attempts of the Commission to implement Class III minimum control standards in the face of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision in Colorado River Indian Tribes v. National Indian Gaming Commission. Steffani A. Cochran, Vice Chairman of the NIGC, addressed this issue in general terms, but focused primarily upon the efforts of the NIGC staff to work on building better working relationships between the NIGC and the tribes. What was very clear from the tribal speakers was a strong desire to continue to limit the authority of the NIGC over tribal operations.
There was a great deal of substantive discussion regarding internet gaming and its potential impact upon Indian Country gaming. What became clear in the discussions is that with the exception of the alliance created between a significant number of California tribal casinos and California card clubs (the California Online Poker Association, referred to as COPA, which is aggressively advancing intrastate internet poker legislation in the California legislature) and limited amounts of testimony before Congressional committees considering internet gaming issues, neither Indian Country nor the NIGC have yet agreed upon and developed a comprehensive, coherent position on internet gaming in Indian Country for inclusion in federal legislative efforts. Several speakers focused on the importance of Indian Country getting to the negotiation table at the federal level if Indian Country wants to have a meaningful say in the drafting of federal internet legislation. By way of example, there is no consensus on how and by whom tribal internet gaming would be licensed and regulated.
The conference also confirmed that Indian Country gaming is facing the same economic challenges that the commercial gaming industry is facing. This has resulted in reductions in gross revenue, reductions in staffing, and reductions in funding of tribal projects. As a result, the Rincon decision will probably play a particularly significant role in upcoming tribal/state negotiations.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.