Artichoke Joe's v. Norton
| Decision Date | 05 August 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.S-01-248-DFL-GGH.,CIV.S-01-248-DFL-GGH. |
| Citation | 216 F.Supp.2d 1084 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | ARTICHOKE JOE'S, California Grand Casino, Fairfield Youth Foundation, Lucky Chances, Inc., Oaks Club Room, Sacramento Consolidated Charities, Plaintiffs, v. Gale A. NORTON, James McDivitt, Gray Davis, Bill Lockyer, Harlan W. Goodson, John E. Hensley, Michael C. Palmer, J.K. Sasaki, Arlo Smith, Defendants. |
Robert D. Links, Berger, Nadel and Vanilla, San Francisco, CA, Alan Jay Titus, Robb and Ross, Mill Valley, CA, for Artichoke Joe's.
David Michael Fried, San Francisco, CA, for California Grand Casino, Oak Club Room.
Michael V. Franked, Franked and Restroom, Sacramento, CA, for Lucky Chances, Inc.
Edmund F. Brennan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Sacramento, CA, for Gale A. Norton, Sec. of Interior, James McDivitt, Acting Asst. Sec. of Interior.
Marc A. Le Forestier, Kathleen E. Gnekow, Atty. General's Office, Sacramento, CA, for Gray Davis, Bill Lockyer, Harlan W. Goodson, John E. Hensley, Michael C. Member, J.K. Sasaki, Arlo Smith.
Richard G. McCracken, Davis, Cowell an Bowe, San Francisco, CA, for Agua Caliente Bank of Cahuilla Indians (amicus), Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Intern. Union (amicus).
Frank R. Lawrence, Holland and Knight, Los Angeles, CA, for California Nat. Indian Gaming Assoc. (amicus).
Fred James Hiestand, Sacramento, CA, for Bi-partisan Group of Offices and Members of the California Legislature (amicus).
AMENDED MEMORANDUM of OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs challenge the validity of compacts entered into under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA"), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., between the State of California and certain Indian tribes. The compacts permit the tribes to offer Las Vegas style high stakes gaming, including slot machines. The compacts were specifically authorized by a California constitutional amendment, Proposition 1A, which gives the Governor the authority "to negotiate and conclude compacts ... for the operation of slot machines and for the conduct of lottery games and banking card games by federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands in California." Cal. Const. Art. IV, sec. 19(e). The plaintiffs are California card clubs and charities who are prohibited under state law from offering similar sorts of gambling, and thus have been placed at a competitive disadvantage. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, various state and federal officers, including the Governor and the Secretary of the Interior, violated IGRA and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by creating a tribal monopoly on Las Vegas style gaming. Plaintiffs seek both declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate the existing compacts and to block the execution of any future compacts. The state and federal defendants contend that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs' claims and that neither Proposition 1A nor the compacts violate federal law. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court finds that it has jurisdiction over most of the plaintiffs' claims and further finds that neither the compacts nor Proposition 1A violate federal law.
Because of the opinion's length and the wide range of issues addressed, the court provides the following summary. On the standing issues, the court has jurisdiction to resolve the claims against the federal defendants, the claims against the Governor related to existing compacts, and the claims against the State Attorney General and the Director of the California Division of Gambling Control as to the enforcement of state gaming laws against plaintiffs. The court concludes that as to count II, brought against the state defendants as to existing and future compacts, plaintiffs have demonstrated an injury in fact with respect to the Governor and the existing compacts. However, they fail to demonstrate an immediate and imminent threat of harm from possible future compacts, and thus, are not entitled to seek equitable relief as to any future compacts, including potential compacts involving the Lytton Rancheria under count III. Also as to count II, the plaintiffs have established that the Governor's conduct caused their alleged injuries and that a favorable ruling would redress their alleged harms. Further, they have established causation and redressability as to the Attorney General and the Director, but not the Commission, under count IV which seeks to enjoin enforcement of California Penal Code provisions prohibiting plaintiffs and others from engaging in Las Vegas style gambling. The court further concludes that it has jurisdiction over the Governor, Attorney General, and the Director under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908).
As to count I, which is brought against the federal defendants, the court concludes that plaintiffs may bring a claim to enforce IGRA and the Johnson Act under § 701(a)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. Further, because matters related to the approval of tribal gaming compacts are not committed by law to agency discretion, plaintiffs' claims are not precluded by § 701(a)(2) of the APA. The court also concludes that the plaintiffs fall within the zone of interests arguably sought to be protected by IGRA and the Johnson Act. Finally, because the legal interests of California's Indian tribes are adequately represented by the Secretary of the Interior the tribes are not necessary and indispensable parties under Fed.R.Civ.P. 19.
With respect to the merits of the case, the court holds that the class III gaming compacts are valid under IGRA and the Constitution. Because California law through Proposition 1A permits class III gaming for Indian tribes with compacts, it satisfies IGRA's requirement that the state "permit" class III gaming "for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity." 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(B). The court finds that this statutory language cannot reasonably be understood to condition class III Indian gaming on the state's permission of class III gaming to all persons for any purpose. If this were the proper interpretation, IGRA would be a virtual nullity because no state would ever grant class III gaming privileges to all comers for any purpose. Rather, the language is best understood to open the way to class III Indian gaming if the state grants permission to any one group or person, including Indian tribes. For these reasons, the court concludes that the defendants are in compliance with IGRA and the Johnson Act.
The court further finds that the tribal class III gaming monopoly does not discriminate on the basis of race. Under well established Supreme Court precedent, "[f]ederal regulation of Indian tribes ... is governance of once-sovereign political communities; it is not to be viewed as legislation of a `racial' group consisting of `Indians' ...." United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 646, 97 S.Ct. 1395, 51 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977) (quoting Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 553 n. 24, 94 S.Ct. 2474, 41 L.Ed.2d 290 (1974)). So long as the compacts are rationally related to Congress' trust obligation to the tribes, the compacts will not be set aside on constitutional grounds. Because the compacts, including the monopoly on class III gaming, promote tribal economic development, they are rationally related to Congress' trust obligations and do not violate equal protection.
This case presents significant, complex legal issues against a background of even more important and complex policy questions. Those policy questions must be resolved by the political branches and the electorate. The court decides only that the state and federal defendants did not violate federal law by entering into the compacts at issue.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was enacted by Congress in 1988 shortly after the Supreme Court's decision in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 107 S.Ct. 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 244 (1987). In Cabazon the Court invalidated California's regulation of Indian bingo on the ground that such regulation was civil rather than criminal in nature and therefore was not authorized by Public Law 280.1 As a practical result of Cabazon, Indian tribes were free to offer gaming on tribal lands subject only to federal regulation or to state criminal prohibitions. Although Congress had been considering bills to regulate Indian gaming for several years, Cabazon left something of a regulatory vacuum that made the issue of Indian gaming regulation more pressing.2
IGRA was Congress' compromise solution to the difficult questions involving Indian gaming. The Act was passed in order 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" and "to shield [tribal gaming] from organized crime and other corrupting influences to ensure that the Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation." 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1), (2). IGRA is an example of "cooperative federalism" in that it seeks to balance the competing sovereign interests of the federal government, state governments, and Indian tribes, by giving each a role in the regulatory scheme. See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 167-68, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) ().
IGRA functions by dividing gaming into three categories and intensifying the level of regulatory oversight...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rincon Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation Cal. v. Flynt
...In short, banked games are those in which the casino or the " ‘house’ " has a monetary stake in the game. (Artichoke Joe's v. Norton (E.D.Cal., 2002) 216 F.Supp.2d 1084, 1092, fn. 3.)2 We have read and considered the amicus curiae brief submitted by the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, the Viejas ......
-
Alarm.com Inc. v. Hirshfeld
...344, 347–48 (9th Cir. 1975) ; Consolidated-Tomoka Land Co. v. Butz , 498 F.2d 1208, 1210 (5th Cir. 1974) ; Artichoke Joe's v. Norton , 216 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1113 (E.D. Cal. 2002).5 We need not treat Ethicon as precedential to reach any holding in this opinion. See Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. ......
-
Flynt v. California Gambling Control Com.
...of California issued an opinion rejecting the identical arguments that appellants make in this appeal. (Artichoke Joe's v. Norton (E.D.Cal.2002) 216 F.Supp.2d 1084 (Artichoke Joe's))8 Lower federal court decisions on federal questions, while not binding, are persuasive and entitled to great......
-
FORT INDEPENDENCE INDIAN COMMUNITY v. California
...sharing provisions connected to exclusivity is entitled to deference under Skidmore. See also Artichoke Joe's California Grand Casino v. Norton, 216 F.Supp.2d 1084, 1126-27 (E.D.Cal.2002) aff'd by 353 F.3d 712, 730 (9th The Blackfeet canon directs courts to interpret ambiguity in statutes p......
-
Chapter 2
...Ed. 2d 244 (1987), superseded by statute.[250] . 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq.[251] . 25 U.S.C. § 2701.[252] . Artichoke Joe’s v. Norton, 216 F. Supp.2d 1084, 1092 (E.D. Cal. 2002).[253] . 18 U.S.C. § 1166(a).[254] . 18 U.S.C. § 1166(c).[255] . 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1).[256] . 25 U.S.C. § 2703(6)......
-
CHAPTER 5 A RETROSPECTIVE VIEW OF INDIAN LAW DURING THE FIRST TERM OF THE BUSH-CHENEY ADMINISTRATION
...relief, determining that there was no jurisdiction to resolve intra-tribal disputes. 3. Artichoke Joe's Cal. Grand Casino v. Norton, 216 F.Supp2d 1084 (E.D. Cal. 2002), aff'd, 353 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2003) Two private card clubs and two non-profit charitable organizations challenged the appr......