Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. State of Idaho
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Citation | 51 F.3d 876 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-35238,94-35238 |
| Parties | COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Kootenai Tribe of Idaho; Nez Perce Tribe, Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 06 April 1995 |
Page 876
and
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho; Nez Perce Tribe, Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF IDAHO, Defendant-Appellee.
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 6, 1995.
Raymond C. Givens, Givens, Funke & Work, Coeur d'Alene, ID, for plaintiff-appellant.
David G. High, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, ID, for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho; Harold L. Ryan, District Judge, Presiding.
Before: PREGERSON, KOZINSKI, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed substantially for the reasoning advanced in its published opinion, 842 F.Supp. 1268 (Idaho 1994). Our affirmation also is based, in part, on our holding in Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians v. Wilson, 41 F.3d 421 (9th Cir.1994).
In Rumsey, we held that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2710(d)(1)(B), permits Class III gaming activities on Indian lands "only if such activities are ... located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose...." Id. at 425. Thus, we concluded that where a state does not permit gaming activities sought by a tribe, "the tribe has no right to engage in those activities, and the state ... has no duty to negotiate with respect to them." Id. In so concluding, we cited with approval Judge Ryan's well-reasoned opinion in the instant case. Id. at 427.
Because Idaho does not permit Class III gaming activities, we hold that the Coeur D'Alene Tribe has no right to engage in those activities.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Confed. Tribes and Bands of Yakama Indian v. Lowry, CY-95-3077-AAM.
...is intended to include States. In Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. State of Idaho, 842 F.Supp. 1268, 1282 (D.Idaho 1994), affirmed, Page 534 51 F.3d 876 (9th Cir.1995), the Idaho district court concluded it was "obvious" that a state lottery is a Class III gaming activity subject to IGRA's provisions......
-
Flynt v. California Gambling Control Com., A098186.
...chair of the NIGC. (§ 2710(d); see also Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. State (D.Idaho 1994) 842 F.Supp. 1268, 1282-1283, aff'd. (9th Cir. 1995) 51 F.3d 876 [under the IGRA, class III gaming activities could not lawfully be conducted on Indian reservation absent a tribal ordinance and a tribal-state......
-
Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Doyle, 2003AP421.
...that a compact cannot authorize forms of gaming not otherwise legal in state); Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. Idaho, 842 F.Supp. 1268, aff'd, 51 F.3d 876, 876 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that state was required to negotiate only with respect to specific Class III games that were permitted in the 29. Fo......
-
Panzer v. Doyle, 03-0910-OA.
...that compact cannot authorize forms of gaming not otherwise legal in state); Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. Idaho, 842 F. Supp. 1268, affirmed, 51 F.3d 876, 876 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that state was required to negotiate only with respect to specific Class III games that were permitted in the sta......