The Buffalo Creek Casino Case: The NIGC's Actions

When we left off on the Buffalo Creek controversy, we had reached the point where the Seneca Nation had purchased 9 acres of land in Buffalo in 2005. That was followed by a federal suit, filed by Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County, to stop the tribe from opening a casino on the land. At issue was whether the land in question qualified as "Indian lands" under IGRA.

Back in 2002, when the Interior Secretary "pocket approved" the compact between the Seneca Nation and New York, Secretary Norton issued a letter explaining why she was neither disapproving nor affirmatively approving the compact. (Under IGRA, if the Secretary takes no action within 45 days, a compact is deemed approved.) In the letter, Norton stated that the land the tribe intended to purchase with the Seneca Nation Settlement Act (SNSA) funds would be "Indian lands" under IGRA. She also stated that the land would fall within the "settlement of a land claim" exception to IGRA's prohibition against gaming on lands acquired after 1988.

In 2002, the Seneca Nation passed a gaming ordinance that indicated the tribe's intent to conduct gaming on its lands. It did not specify a location, as the compact authorized the tribe to operate a casino in Buffalo "at a location to be determined." The ordinance was submitted to the NIGC Chair for approval, as required by IGRA. Chairman Hogen approved the ordinance, noting that approval was "for gaming only on Indian lands."

Once the land was purchased, the Seneca Nation passed an amended gaming ordinance that specifically identified the Buffalo parcel as the location for its casino. Chairman Phil Hogen approved the ordinance in 2007. Hogen's approval letter concluded, "Based on our review of the submitted ordinance, and taking into consideration the Department of the Interior's earlier decisions regarding the status of the Buffalo parcels, the parcels are Indian lands within the meaning of IGRA and they were acquired through the settlement of a land claim and thus are exempt from the general prohibition on gaming on land acquired after October 17, 1988."

In the meantime, though, the federal suit was pending . . . .

Up next: the challenges to the NIGC's actions.

New "Section 20" Regulations: The Best Interests Exception

So here we go with the “best interests” exception, otherwise known as the “two-part determination.” Follow this:

Under IGRA's section 2719, an exception is made to the general prohibition against gaming on newly acquired lands when gaming on the lands is "in the best interest of the tribe and its members, and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community." We call this the "best interests" exception; it also is referred to as the "Secretary's two-part determination." Specifically, IGRA requires that the Secretary of the Interior must first consult with the tribe, the state, local officials, and officials of nearby tribes, and then determine that gaming on the newly acquired lands would be in the best interest of the tribe and its members and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community. Importantly, the state's governor must concur in the Secretary's determination; as we've pointed out on numerous occasions, this is essentially veto power over tribal gaming under this exception. The consultation and governor's concurrence requirements create potential political obstacles to the likelihood that a tribe may conduct gaming on newly acquired lands under the "best interests" exception, as demonstrated by the fact that only three tribes currently operate gaming on newly acquired lands under this exception (the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community of the Lake Superior Bands of Chippewa Indians operate a casino in Choclay Township, outside of Marquette, Michigan; the Forest County Potawatomi operate a casino in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and the Kalispell Tribe conducts gaming in Airway Heights, Washington).

The new regulations detail the process for approval of a "best interests" exception application. (Much of the process tracks what the BIA had followed under the "Checklist for Gaming Acquisitions and Two-Part Determinations Under Section 20 of IGRA" and the January 2008 "Guidance on Taking Off-Reservation Land Into Trust for Gaming Purposes.") A few things worth noting:

"Surrounding community" is defined in section 292.2 as including "local governments and nearby Indian tribes located within a 25-mile radius of the proposed gaming establishment." A local government or tribe further away may be included in the consultation process if the tribe shows that "its governmental functions, infrastructure or services will be directly, immediately and significantly impacted" by the gaming.

The tribe's application must describe the benefits and impacts of the gaming on the tribe and its members. Specifically, the regulations require information about projected gaming income, projected tribal employment, tourism, proposed uses of income, possible adverse impacts and plans to address the same, distance between the land and the tribe's core governmental functions, historical connections to the land, and "any other information" relevant to the Secretary's determination on this point.

Similarly, the tribe's application must include information about the detrimental impacts of the gaming on the surrounding community, such as environmental impacts; impacts on the social structure, infrastructure, services, housing, community character, and land use patterns; impacts on economic development, income, and employment; treatment of compulsive gambling; impacts on other tribes' traditional cultural connections to the land; the costs of the anticipated impacts; and "any other information" relevant to the Secretary's determination on this point.

Assuming the Secretary determines that gaming on the land would be in the best interest of the tribe and its members, and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community, then the Secretary will notify the state's governor and request her concurrence. If the governor concurs, then the tribe's application will be approved. The governor's written "non-concurrence" will prevent the tribe from using the land for gaming purposes, though the tribe may pursue a land-into-trust application for non-gaming purposes. Under the new regulations, the governor may also do nothing. If the governor issues neither a concurrence or a "non-concurrence" within a year (which may be extended by an additional 180 days) of the Secretary's notification and request for concurrence, then the Secretary's determination essentially will expire, requiring the tribe to start over.

Next time, some commentary on this exception from an article or two in which Kathryn is quoted.

New "Section 20" Regulations: Restored Lands Exception

Still more in our series on the National Indian Gaming Commission’s new “Section 20” regulations concerning gaming on newly acquired lands:

In section 2719(b), IGRA creates an exception for "lands are taken into trust as part of . . . (iii) the restoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to Federal recognition." The new regulations, in 25 C.F.R. sections 292.7 to 292.12, set out the requirements for the restored lands exception.

The tribe must show that it was federally recognized, that its recognition was terminated or otherwise lost, and that it then subsequently was "restored" to federal recognition. Importantly, the tribe must also show that the land in question was part of a "restoration of lands" connected to the tribe's restored federal recognition. Each of these requirements is detailed in the new regulations.

The tribe's original federal recognition may be evidenced by U.S.-tribal treaty negotiations, organization under the Indian Reorganization Act (or the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act), federal legislation, land acquired by the U.S. for the tribe's benefit, or other demonstration of the existence of a government-to-government relationship between the tribe and the U.S.

Termination of the tribe's recognition may be through federal termination legislation, federal restoration legislation that acknowledges prior recognition, or consistent federal records indicating termination of the government-to-government relationship with the tribe.

Restoration of the tribe's federal recognition may be by federal statute, the federal administrative acknowledgment process, or a federal court decision (in which the U.S. is a party) or a court-approved settlement agreement (entered into by the U.S.).

The status of lands as part of the "restoration of lands" varies with the mechanism of restoration of federal recognition. If restored via statute, then the statute must direct or authorize the Interior Secretary to take land into trust, and the land in question must be within the geographic area referenced by the statute. If no geographic area is specified in the restoration legislation, or if the tribe's federal recognition is restored via administrative acknowledgment or court decision, then the land in question must meet the requirements of section 292.12: the land must be located in the state (or states) where the tribe currently is located (as with the initial reservation exception, the tribe's current location is determined by the presence of tribal government and population centers); the tribe must have a "significant historical connection" to the land; and the tribe must have at least one "modern connection" to the land. For restored lands, modern connections include: within a "reasonable commuting distance" of the tribe's existing reservation, "near" the residences of a "significant number" of tribal members, within 25 miles of the tribe's headquarters or other government facilities, or "other factors [that] demonstrate the tribe's current connection to the land." Additionally, the tribe must show a "temporal connection" between the acquisition of the land and the restoration of the tribe's federal recognition, in the form of evidence that either the land was included in the tribe's first land-into-trust request following its restoration or the tribe requested that the land be taken into trust within 25 years of its restoration (this latter temporal connection also requires that the tribe is not operating gaming on other lands).

Up next: the Big One. We’ll explain the new regs concerning the “best interests” exception, otherwise known as the “two-part determination.”

New "Section 20" Regulations: Initial Reservation Exception

More on the National Indian Gaming Commission’s new “Section 20” regulations concerning gaming on newly acquired lands:

In section 2719(b), IGRA creates an exception for "lands are taken into trust as part of . . . (ii) the initial reservation of an Indian tribe acknowledged by the Secretary under the Federal acknowledgment process." In 25 C.F.R. section 292.6, the new regulations set forth four conditions for meeting the initial reservation exception.

First, as the statutory language indicates, the tribe must be federally recognized through the federal administrative tribal acknowledgment process (see 25 C.F.R. pt. 83). Second, the tribe must not already operate a gaming facility under IGRA's restored land exception. Third, the land must be proclaimed as a reservation under 25 U.S.C. section 467, and must be the first proclaimed reservation of the tribe following its federal recognition.

The fourth requirement applies to tribes without a proclaimed reservation on the effective date of the new regulations (June 19, 2008). For those tribes, in order for the land to be a proclaimed initial reservation, the land must be located in the state (or states) where the tribe currently is located. The tribe's current location is determined by the presence of tribal government and population centers. Additionally, the land must be "within an area" where the tribe has "significant historical connections," and at least one "modern connection," to the land. Modern connections include: "near" the residences of a "significant number" of tribal members; within 25 miles of the tribe's headquarters or other government facilities; or "other factors that establish the tribe's current connection to the land."

In the definitions section, section 292.2, "significant historical connection" is defined as either within the boundaries of the tribe's last treaty reservation, or documentation of the existence of tribal villages, burial grounds, occupancy, or subsistence use in the vicinity of the land.

Up tomorrow: the “restored lands” exception.

New "Section 20" Regulations: Settlement of a Land Claim Exception

The Interior Department's new "Section 20" regulations clarify when settlement lands will meet the exception to IGRA's general prohibition against gaming on newly acquired lands. In section 2719(b), IGRA creates an exception for "lands are taken into trust as part of . . . (i) a settlement of a land claim."

Under 25 C.F.R. section 292.5, the land must be either acquired through resolution of the claim via federal statute, a settlement agreement executed by the parties (including the U.S.), or a final court order or judicially enforceable settlement agreement. The last settlement mechanism, a court order or judicially enforceable settlement, must predate IGRA's enactment (October 17, 1988).

In section 292.2, the new regulations also limit "land claim" to claims arising under federal law ("United States Constitution, Federal common law, Federal statute or treaty"). Additionally, the claim must have accrued on or before IGRA's date of enactment or involve lands placed in trust or restricted status on or before the same date.

Not too much here that rocks the boat. Up tomorrow: the “initial reservation” exception.

Interior Issues New "Section 20" Regulations: Big News, Big Implications

In section 2719 (or, as it's often called, "Section 20," in reference to the numbering of the statutory sections in bill form), the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) sets forth a general prohibition against tribal gaming on trust lands acquired after IGRA's date of enactment:

Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, gaming regulated by this chapter shall not be conducted on lands acquired by the Secretary in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe after October 17, 1988 . . . .

Such lands are commonly referred to as "newly acquired" or "after acquired" lands. There are, however, a number of general and state- and tribe-specific exceptions.

These exceptions, though relatively rarely applied, are political lightning rods, giving rise to charges of "reservation shopping." For more than eight years, the Interior Department has been working on regulations interpreting section 2719. (Since 1994, the BIA's application of the section 2719 exceptions has been guided by a "Checklist for Gaming Acquisitions and Two-Part Determinations Under Section 20 of IGRA" issued by the BIA's Office of Indian Gaming Management. A checklist, of course, doesn’t carry the force of law or even of formal policy.)

In late May, Interior published its new "Section 20" regulations in the Federal Register. This is big news for a whole bunch of tribes. In the next few posts, we'll walk you through the new regulations (25 C.F.R pt. 292), so stay tuned.

The Second of Two New "Indian Lands" Opinions by NIGC

On May 19, the NIGC, through its acting general counsel, issued two opinions on whether particular land satisfied IGRA's "Indian land" requirement, so that the tribe could conduct gaming on the land.

We discussed the first opinion, concerning the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, in our last post. The second opinion concerned the Fort Sill Apache Tribe's plans to open a Class II operation on trust lands in New Mexico. Here, too, section 2719 applied, as the land was acquired by the Tribe in 1998. The Tribe argued that one of three exceptions to IGRA's general prohibition against gaming on newly acquired lands should apply: last recognized reservation, restored lands, and/or initial reservation.

As for the last recognized reservation exception under section 2719(a)(2)(B), the NIGC concluded that the Tribe is not "presently located" in New Mexico and that the Tribe failed to provide sufficient evidence that the land was located within the boundaries of its last recognized reservation. The restored lands exception (section 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii)) did not apply here, as there was insufficient evidence that the Tribe's tribal status was "restored," and that the land in question was part of a "restoration of lands." Finally, the initial reservation exception (section 2719(b)(1)(B)(ii)) did not apply, as the BIA provided information that although the land was coded as "reservation" land, it had not yet determined whether to proclaim the trust land in question as a reservation. Further, the initial reservation exception is limited to tribal groups acknowledged through the administrative process.

Both opinions are available through the NIGC's website, here.

Two New "Indian Lands" Opinions by NIGC

On May 19, the NIGC, through its acting general counsel, issued two opinions on whether particular land satisfied IGRA's "Indian land" requirement, so that the tribe could conduct gaming on the land.

The first opinion concerned a parcel of land near Montgomery, Alabama, on which the Poarch Band of Creek Indians currently is conducting gaming. In 2003, Alabama officials questioned whether the Band's Class II operation was legal. The land was taken into trust in 1995, thus triggering section 2719's general prohibition against gaming on lands acquired after 1988 -- unless the land satisfies one of the handful of exceptions set out in IGRA. The NIGC concluded that the land met the "restored lands" exception, as it was taken into trust as part of the Band's restoration of lands following federal tribal acknowledgement in 1984.

Interestingly, the NIGC opinion was issued while the Interior Secretary continues to contemplate formal regulations governing newly acquired lands. As the acting general counsel noted at the start of her opinion letter, "I recognize that this decision, coming from me and at this time, is a bit unusual." Referencing the assistance provided by the Band and the delay in the issuance of the opinion, the letter states that it would be "significantly unfair" to require the Band to wait for new regulations.

As for the nearly five years that passed between the state's request for review and the NIGC opinion letter, the letter states, "Thank you for your extraordinary patience as our office reviewed the question of the status of the Parch Band's Tallapoosa Site. I recognize that this review was disruptive to the Tribe financially and for that I apologize."

More on the second opinion, concerning the Fort Sill Apache Tribe’s plans to open a Class II operation in New Mexico, in our next post.

Interior Disapproves Catskills Casino Plans

Some of you may have heard that the Interior Department recently issued a letter rejecting the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe's (NY) plan for an off-reservation casino in the Catskills. The letter, issued by Interior Associate Deputy Secretary James Cason, stated,

"The remote location of the proposed gaming facility may encourage reservation residents to leave the reservation for an extended period to take advantage of the job opportunities created. . . . The potential departure of a significant number of reservation residents and their families could have serious and far-reaching implications for the remaining tribal community and its continuity as a community."

The rationale reflects the current Secretary's stance on so-called "far flung" lands—which has raised both procedural and substantive questions about the extent of the agency’s authority—but nevertheless is surprising given that the support of Governor Spitzer for a tribal casino in the Catskills.

Read more at "US Officials Reject Catskill Casino Plans."

A reference to Kathryn's quotes on the Mashpee in Massachusetts showed up recently in this "Casino Friend" blog on the Mashpee Wampanoag casino plan.

The post asks,

"Kathryn Rand suggests that the BIA might be suspicious of a claimed reservation sited in an ideal location for a casino. Would she say the same thing if the tribe acted like any big corporation would in their position and shopped about to have a reservation on land that was perfectly suited for a specific business, be it an industrial park, a shopping center, or for that matter for growing cranberries?"

The answer is no, not because Kathryn thinks that there is good cause to be "suspicious" of casino-style gaming on newly acquired lands, but because the current political climate is one of hostility toward so-called "reservation shopping."

In fact, we have been critical of this hostility, and called for policymakers to be guided not by politics, but by IGRA's policy goals and tribal sovereignty. We'd point this blogger to our 2007 article in the Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, "How Congress Can and Should 'Fix' the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act."

An Active Interior Department

In prior posts, we've mentioned the recent activity of the Interior Department. We've also talked about the prospects for Indian gaming in Massachusetts.

Here's a link to an article in the Cape Cod Times where Kathryn is quoted on the implications of Interior's recent decisions on other tribes' efforts to conduct gaming on newly acquired lands. Click on this: Decision Could Sour Mashpee Wampanoag's Casino Plans.

Breaking News: Interior Disapproves Catskills Casino Plans

Late Friday, the Department of Interior issued a letter rejecting the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe's plan for an off-reservation casino in the Catskills.

The letter, issued by Interior Associate Deputy Secretary James Cason, stated, "The remote location of the proposed gaming facility may encourage reservation residents to leave the reservation for an extended period to take advantage of the job opportunities created. . . . The potential departure of a significant number of reservation residents and their families could have serious and far-reaching implications for the remaining tribal community and its continuity as a community."

This reflects the current Secretary's stance on so-called "far flung" lands, but nevertheless is surprising given that the support of Governor Spitzer for a tribal casino in the Catskills.

Read more by clicking here.

Secretary Kempthorne Under Fire for Delays on "Off-Reservation" Casinos

In New York and Wisconsin, tribes are growing tired of waiting for Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to issue decisions on "off-reservation" casino proposals.

The St. Croix Chippewa Indian Tribe in Wisconsin has had a proposal for a casino near Beloit in the works for some seven years, while the St. Regis Mohawk proposal for a casino in New York's Catskills region dates back to 1996.

Both proposals are proceeding under IGRA's "best interests" exception, which allows a tribe to operate gaming on newly acquired lands. For the best interests exception to apply, the Interior Secretary must make a two-part determination: that gaming on the land would be in the best interest of the tribe, and would not be detrimental to surrounding communities. Additionally, the state governor must concur with the Secretary's favorable decision. Often, casino proposals under the best interests exception fail because of the lack of gubernatorial support.

That makes the Secretary's delay on the Mohawk proposal particularly surprising, given Governor Spitzer's public endorsement of an off-reservation casino in the Catskills.

Read more here, and here.

Interesting NIGC Reasoning on the Seneca Nation

A couple of days ago, we posted on NIGC’s recent approval letter for the Seneca Nation to open the Buffalo Creek Casino on newly acquired lands. The NIGC determined that the land in question fell within an exception to IGRA's general prohibition against gaming on newly acquired lands.

Interestingly, the NIGC stated, "In addition to the current exercises of governmental power, by operating and regulating gaming, which is a governmental function under IGRA, the Nation will exercise governmental authority over the lands."

We are confused by this last part, since IGRA's "Indian lands" requirement is best understood as a prerequisite to gaming -- that is, gaming should not be evidence of the exercise of governmental authority that is required to allow gaming on the lands. The question of Indian lands, especially in conjunction with gaming on newly acquired lands, is increasingly important, and considered and consistent legal standards are imperative. One of the reasons that the question is tricky is that the term "Indian lands" is unique to IGRA, and there simply aren't a lot of federal court opinions interpreting the meaning of the term to provide clear guidance to the NIGC.

The NIGC Indian Land Opinion is available here. See also "Opponents Say Indian Casino Illegal" in Newsday.

The Seneca Nation and "Off-Reservation" Gaming in New York

Whaddaya get when you go on vacation? A whole lot of new events related to Indian gaming! Look for a flurry of posts as we try to catch you up!

In July, the NIGC issued an approval letter for the Seneca Nation to open the Buffalo Creek Casino on newly acquired lands. The NIGC determined that the land in question fell within an exception to IGRA's general prohibition against gaming on newly acquired lands.

(The characterization of the casino as "off-reservation" is technically correct, as the land falls outside the boundaries of the current Seneca reservation, but it is important to note that the Seneca acquired the land through the settlement of a land claim. In other words, the Seneca had asserted not only a historical tie to the land, but also had claimed an existing right to the land because it was wrongfully removed from the tribe's reservation. The tribe's claims were settled through the Seneca Nation Land Claims Settlement Act, and the tribe used funds provided through the Act to purchase the land in question. We reserve the term "off-reservation" for casinos that fall under IGRA's "best interests" exception, which does not require any historical ties or legal claims to off-reservation land.)

In addition to finding that the "settlement of a land claim" exception applied, the NIGC also determined that the land in question qualified as "Indian lands" – IGRA requires that both Class II and Class III gaming be conducted on "Indian lands." For lands that aren't part of the tribe's current reservation, in order to qualify as Indian lands, the tribe must have jurisdiction and exercise governmental authority over the land. The NIGC found that the Seneca has asserted that tribal law applies to the land, has fenced the land, and that tribal law enforcement patrols and polices the land.

For more on this, including the NIGC Land Opinion and our own opinions about the NIGC’s findings, check back tomorrow!

A Case to Watch . . . .

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a decision, following an en banc hearing, in Carcieri v. Kempthorne last week. This case stems from the 1998 decision of the Interior Secretary to take into trust a 32-acre parcel of land in Charlestown, Rhode Island, for the benefit of the Narragansett Tribe. The tribe had purchased the parcel in 1991, and pursued trust status so that it could use the land for housing. The Secretary took the land into trust under 25 U.S.C. section 465, part of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, which authorizes the Secretary, "in his discretion," to acquire and take into trust "any interest in lands . . . within or without existing reservations . . .for the purpose of providing land for Indians."

Rhode Island challenged the Secretary's decision on a number of grounds. Although the First Circuit rejected the state's arguments and upheld the Secretary's decision, at least two of the challenges are worth watching, as the state plans to seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court.

One argument is that section 465 only allows the Secretary to take lands into trust for tribes that were federally recognized in 1934. For tribes like the Narragansett, which was federally recognized in 1983, argued the state, the Secretary does not have power under 465 to take land into trust for their benefit. The court rejected this, reasoning that the statute's reach is not clearly limited to tribes who were federally recognized in 1934.

Another argument is that the Secretary's decision violates state sovereignty. Rhode Island argued that the Indian Commerce Clause is limited by the 10th Amendment, along the lines of the 10th Amendment limits on federal power under the Interstate Commerce Clause, as reflected in New York v. U.S. and Printz v. U.S. The court rejected this argument as well, but noted that Rhode Island's challenge "underscore[s] the seriousness of the State's concern about the abrogation of state sovereignty at stake here."

And, of course, although the tribe sought trust status for the land in order to build tribal housing, Rhode Island argued that the "true purpose" behind the trust application was to open a casino. This assertion gave rise to the state's argument that the land does not fall into one of IGRA's exceptions to the general prohibition against gaming on lands acquired after 1988. The court rejected this argument as well, noting that "[n]o evidence that the Tribe intends to use the Parcel for anything other than tribal housing, as determined by the BIA, was presented."

The case is Carcieri v. Kempthorne, No. 03-2647, First Circuit, July 20, 2007.

For more, see this article in the Boston Globe.

Senecas Open Temporary Casino After NIGC Ruling

In Buffalo, the Seneca Nation has opened a temporary casino following a National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) ruling that the tribe’s new land falls under one of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s small number of exceptions for opening a gaming facility on newly acquired land. The Seneca Buffalo Creek Casino has just 124 slot machines, but the Senecas plan to build a $125 million casino and entertainment complex that is expected to create 1,000 new jobs.

NIGC Chair Phil Hogan determined that the Senecas bought the nine acres on which the casino is sited as part of the federal Seneca Nation Land Claims Settlement Act.

IGRA generally prohibits gaming on newly acquired lands after October 17, 1988, the date of its passage, but provides several exceptions. One exception allows gaming on newly acquired lands when the land is placed in trust as a settlement of a land claim.

The temporary—and future—casino’s opponents disagree with Chairman Hogan’s interpretation, and have filed suit against the U.S. Secretary of the Interior and the NIGC.

Although this looks to be divisive, you can bet that there will be plenty of folks anteing up at the casino.

See the recent articles in the Buffalo News, here and here.

Restored Tribe, Restored Indian Lands: The Latest Lawsuit from California

Last week, Amador County, California, sued to block the BIA determination that the Ione Band of Miwok Indians are a "restored" tribe with some 228 acres of restored Indian lands near the town of Plymouth. Why would the county get involved in a land determination?

Under IGRA, gaming generally is prohibited on newly acquired lands. There is an exception, though, for lands that are taken into trust as part of the restoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to Federal recognition. Amador County wants to force the Ione Band to proceed under IGRA’s "best interests" exception instead of the restored lands exception. That’s a higher hurdle to clear to open a casino.

Under the "best interests" exception, the Secretary must determine that gaming on the newly acquired lands would be in the best interest of the tribe and its members, and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community. Further, the state's governor must concur in the Secretary's determination for the "best interests" exception to apply. The handful of other exceptions to the prohibition against gaming on newly acquired lands, including the restored lands exception, do not give the governor veto power over gaming. That's because the other exceptions are all tied to reservation lands, while the "best interests" exception is not.

Click here for the recent Sacramento Bee article.