Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon v. State of Oregon
| Decision Date | 24 April 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-36027,96-36027 |
| Citation | 143 F.3d 481 |
| Parties | 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3080, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4251 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE OF OREGON; Oregon State Police Department; R.J. Sitton, Lieutenant, Oregon State Police Tribal Gaming Unit, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Michael D. Reynolds, Assistant Solicitor General, Salem, Oregon, for defendants-appellants.
Craig J. Dorsay, Portland, Oregon, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Donald C. Ashmanskas, Magistrate Judge Presiding. D.C. No. CV-96-00823-DCA.
Before: NOONAN and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges, and MERHIGE, * District Judge.
OVERVIEW
The State of Oregon ("Oregon") appeals the district court's summary judgment grant
in favor of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians in the Tribe's action under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721, enjoining Oregon from public release of a state investigative report concerning the Chinook Winds gambling casino. We reverse and remand.
Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA"), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721, "to provide a statutory basis for the operation and regulation of gaming by Indian tribes." Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 48, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1119, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996). Under IGRA, gaming is divided into three classes: I, II and III. Class III gaming, the type at issue here, is the most strictly regulated of the three. 1 Class III gaming may be conducted on Indian lands if: (1) authorized by the tribe seeking to conduct the gaming; (2) located in a State which does not bar such gaming; and (3) "conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the State...." 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d).
In 1994, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon ("Siletz Tribe" or "Tribe") 2 and Oregon negotiated a Tribal-State Compact ("Compact") for the regulation of class III gaming on the Siletz reservation 3 at a site known as the Chinook Winds Gaming and Convention Center ("Chinook Winds"), located within Lincoln City, Oregon. 4
Among other things, the Compact authorizes Oregon to monitor and investigate Chinook Winds to ensure compliance with the Compact:
1. Monitoring. The State is authorized hereby to monitor the Tribal gaming operation to ensure that the operation is conducted in compliance with the provisions of this Compact.... The State shall have free and unrestricted access to all areas of the Gaming Facility during the normal operating hours without giving prior notice to the Tribal Gaming operation.
2. Access to Records. The State is hereby authorized to review and copy, during normal business hours, and upon reasonable notice, all records maintained by the Tribal gaming operation; provided, that any documents containing financial information, proprietary ideas, plans, methods, data development, inventions or other proprietary information regarding the gambling enterprise of the Tribe, games conducted by the Tribe, or the operation thereof provided to the State by the Tribe, any copy thereof and any information derived therefrom shall be deemed confidential and proprietary financial information of the Tribe and is hereby acknowledged by the State to have been submitted to the State by the Tribe voluntarily and in confidence, and with the expectation that the records will be regarded as confidential. The State agrees that the disclosure of such documents shall be protected to the extent provided under ORS 192.410 to 192.505. Any records or copies removed from the premises shall be returned to the Tribe after use. Nothing in this subsection precludes the State or the Tribe from disclosing information subject to an appropriate judicial order under the Rules of Civil Procedure or Evidence 3. Investigation Reports. After completion of any inspection or investigation report, the State shall provide a copy of the report to the Tribal Gaming Commission.
in connection with litigation, a prosecution or a criminal investigation.
Pursuant to this section of the Compact, Oregon's State Police Tribal Gaming Unit conducted an investigation of Chinook Winds and generated a report of that investigation dated April 17, 1996 (the "Report"). Soon thereafter, legal counsel for the Governor of Oregon informed the Siletz Tribe and its attorney that a proper request had been made for a copy of the Report and that the Governor believed Oregon was required to release the Report under Oregon's Public Records Laws ("Records Laws"), Or.Rev.Stat. §§ 192.410-192.505 (1996).
The Siletz Tribe protested the proposed release and, when it and Oregon could not reach a settlement, filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon to prevent its release. The Tribe and Oregon stipulated to the entry of a preliminary injunction pending a full disposition of the issues. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the district court entered summary judgment for the Tribe enjoining release of any records generated by Oregon in exercise of its authority under the IGRA.
Relying on Seminole, 517 U.S. 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114, and White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 100 S.Ct. 2578, 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980), the district court found that, under the Indian Commerce Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3., and IGRA, Oregon's authority over the Tribe was limited to "the application of the criminal and civil laws and regulations of the Indian tribe or the State that are directly related to, and necessary for, the licensing and regulation of such [gaming] activity." See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(C).
After determining that the information contained in the Report "is appropriately characterized as on-reservation conduct involving only Indians," the district court concluded that, under White Mountain, "neither IGRA nor the Compact authorizes [Oregon] to apply the [Public] Records Laws to a report discussing the operation of Chinook Winds by the Tribe which is generated, in part, from information provided by the Tribe pursuant to the terms of the Compact."
A summary judgment grant is reviewed de novo. See Covey v. Hollydale Mobilehome Estates, 116 F.3d 830, 834 (9th Cir.1997). We must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. See id. at 834. The district court's findings of fact supporting its judgment are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. See Adler v. Federal Rep. of Nig., 107 F.3d 720, 729 (9th Cir.1997).
The interpretation and meaning of contract provisions are questions of law reviewed de novo. See HS Servs., Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 109 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.1997). The district court's interpretation of a statute is also reviewed de novo. See Pinal Creek Group v. Newmont Mining Corp., 118 F.3d 1298, 1300 (9th Cir.1997).
The Tribe argues that the federal government has exclusive authority over Indian affairs and that no state law can apply to Indian activities on Indian lands unless Congress has expressly made that law applicable. According to the Tribe's argument, IGRA provides for the application of state laws and regulations directly related to class III gaming, but not for the application of state laws unrelated to Indian gaming, such as the Oregon Public Records Laws. Because the Tribe did not agree to a release of such reports in the Compact, Oregon's proposed application of its Records Laws to the Report is preempted by federal law.
We are not persuaded that a preemption analysis is necessary here. Rather, we look to the Compact itself. The Tribe correctly contends that the Compact, a direct result of federal authority granted through IGRA, serves as the basis for any analysis of federal preemption. Without either IGRA or the Compact, there would be simply no question of federal law at stake. Contrary to the Tribe's argument, however, the Report's discussion of Indian gaming does not make Oregon's control of that report ipso facto a regulation of the Tribe. Nor does the generation of the Report under an IGRA-sponsored Compact necessarily make control of that document a matter of federal law.
In our view, the Compact itself controls. To the extent the Compact specifically permits or prohibits the release of the Report, the parties are bound by it. Where the Compact is silent, however, neither IGRA, the Indian Commerce Clause, nor any other federal law prevents Oregon from releasing the Report. 5
The Compact deals expressly with the application of Records Laws: "[Oregon] agrees that the disclosure of [the records maintained by the Tribal gaming operation] shall be protected to the extent provided under ORS 192.410 to 192.505." The Tribe relies on the absence of any explicit statement regarding its agreement to this point, suggesting this shows that the Tribe did not accept this provision. 6 We are not persuaded. Because the Compact calls for the application of Oregon contract law, we must enforce this unambiguous contract provision according to its terms, see Pacific First Bank v. New Morgan Park Corp., 319 Or. 342, 876 P.2d 761, 764 (1994), and it clearly calls for the application of the Records Laws.
On its terms, the Compact applies the Records Laws to certain Tribal records; it does not specifically say that the Records Laws apply to the Report as well. Indeed, the Compact is silent as to the public release of the Report or the applicability of the Oregon Public Records Laws to the Report. The Compact only provides that Oregon "shall provide a copy of the report to the Tribal Gaming Commission." (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Agua Caliente Band of Indians v. Riverside Cnty.
...102 S.Ct. 3394, 3399.Subsequent post-Bracker Ninth Circuit decisions have followed suit. See Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon v. State of Oregon , 143 F.3d 481, 486 (9th Cir.1998) ("[I]n the Indian law context, state law is preempted not only by an explicit congressional stat......
-
Wells Fargo Bank v. Apache Tribe of Okla.
...of tribal casino against other non-Indian co-developer that terminated negotiations with tribe); Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon v. State of Oregon,143 F.3d 481 (9th Cir.1998)(preemption analysis unnecessary to determine impact on tribe's gaming activity of state investigati......
-
Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation v. Johnson
...Tribal-state gaming compacts are agreements, not legislation, and are interpreted as contracts. See Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians v. Oregon, 143 F.3d 481, 485-486, (9th Cir.1998) (the question whether public release of a state investigative report of an Indian casino should be enjoi......
-
Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc.
...207 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000) ("Contract interpretation is a question of law we review de novo"); Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians v. Oregon, 143 F.3d 481, 484 (9th Cir.1998) ("The interpretation and meaning of contract provisions are questions of law reviewed de novo"). While Wa......