On October 30, 2013, a U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of New York remanded a legal challenge of an agreement between New York State and the Oneida Indian Nation back to New York State Supreme Court, finding no federal subject matter jurisdiction.
The challenge relates to a recent agreement between the State and the Oneidas to settle ongoing disputes related to the Oneida operation of Turning Stone Casino in Verona, NY. In exchange for Oneida support of the upcoming referendum to expand gambling in upstate New York, the Oneidas received geographic exclusivity and the state agreed to withdraw a challenge to a Secretary of Interior decision to take land into trust for the Oneidas.
The lawsuit, brought by two Oneida County towns and certain citizens thereof, alleged three causes of action: (1) violation of the certain constitutional rights to freedom of speech and equal protection; (2) loss of the Verona and Vernon's sovereign control to govern within their boundaries; and (3) violation of the state constitution's prohibition on casino gambling by the enactment of the Upstate New York Gaming Economic Development Act of 2013, passed in June 2013, which ratified the agreement with the Oneidas and enacted a "comprehensive scheme to authorize and regulate casino gambling contingent on the approval of the constitutional amendment by popular referendum." Plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement of (1) the agreement between the State and the Oneidas and (2) the Upstate New York Gaming Economic Development Act.
The challenge by Vernon and Verona was removed to federal court on September 6th and defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to remand.
In an opinion issued today, the Court found that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. Because the Court lacked of subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' federal claims, the Court was precluded from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' other claims. The Court held that 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) required the matter to be remanded back to state court rather than dismissed and left the question of whether the claims can be heard in state court to be decided by the New York State Supreme Court.
This article is for general information and does not include full legal analysis of the matters presented. It should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The description of the results of any specific case or transaction contained herein does not mean or suggest that similar results can or could be obtained in any other matter. Each legal matter should be considered to be unique and subject to varying results. The invitation to contact the authors or attorneys in our firm is not a solicitation to provide professional services and should not be construed as a statement as to any availability to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which such attorney is not permitted to practice.
Duane Morris LLP, a full-service law firm with more than 700 attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally, offers innovative solutions to the legal and business challenges presented by today's evolving global markets. Duane Morris LLP, a full-service law firm with more than 700 attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally, offers innovative solutions to the legal and business challenges presented by today's evolving global markets. The Duane Morris Institute provides training workshops for HR professionals, in-house counsel, benefits administrators and senior managers.
