Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head
| Decision Date | 27 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 13–13286–FDS. |
| Citation | 98 F.Supp.3d 55 |
| Parties | Commonwealth of MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff/Counterclaim–Defendant, and The Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association, Inc. (AGHCA) and Town of Aquinnah, Intervenors/Plaintiffs, v. The WAMPANOAG TRIBE OF GAY HEAD (Aquinnah), The Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head, Inc., and The Aquinnah Wampanoag Gaming Corporation, Defendants/Counterclaim–Plaintiffs, v. Charlie Baker, in his official capacity as Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., Third–Party Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
James L. Quarles, III, Felicia H. Ellsworth, Oramel H. Skinner, III, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr, LLP, Boston, MA, Ronald H. Rappaport, Michael A. Goldsmith, Reynolds Rappaport & Kaplan LLP, Edgartown, MA, for Intervenors/Plaintiffs.
Bryan F. Bertram, Carrie M. Benedon, Juliana Dehaan Rice, Office of Attorney General Martha Coakley, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff/Counterclaim–Defendant.
John J. Duffy, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, DC, Lael Echo–Hawk, Garvey Schubert Barer, Seattle, WA, Scott D. Crowell, Crowell Law Offices, Sedona, AZ, Bruce A. Singal, Elizabeth J. McEvoy, Donoghue, Barrett & Singal, PC, Boston, MA, for Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
Carrie M. Benedon, Bryan F. Bertram, Juliana Dehaan Rice, Office of the Attorney General Martha Coakley, Boston, MA, for Third–Party Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
This lawsuit involves a dispute between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a federally recognized Indian tribe concerning regulatory jurisdiction over civil gaming on Indian lands on Martha's Vineyard. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and related entities have taken steps to commence commercial gaming operations on tribal lands without a license from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth contends that operating gaming facilities without such a license would violate a 1983 settlement agreement that subjects the lands in question to state civil and criminal jurisdiction (and thus subjects them to state laws regulating gaming). Count 1 of the complaint alleges breach of contract, and Count 2 seeks a declaratory judgment.
The Commonwealth filed suit in state court on December 2, 2013. On December 30, 2013, the Tribe removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367.1 On August 6, 2014, the Court granted motions to intervene by the Town of Aquinnah and the Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association (“AGHCA”). The Tribe has moved to dismiss the AGHCA complaint on the basis of sovereign immunity and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; it has further moved to dismiss all three complaints (with leave to amend) for failure to join the United States as a required party.
On October 24, 2014, the Tribe filed an amended answer that included a counterclaim against the Commonwealth and counterclaims against three third-party defendants (all of whom are officials of the Commonwealth). Plaintiff and third-party defendants have moved to dismiss the counterclaims on the grounds of sovereign immunity (as to the counterclaims against the Commonwealth) and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
For the reasons stated below, the motions of the Tribe will be denied and the motion of counterclaim-defendants will be granted in part and denied in part.
Unless otherwise noted, the facts are presented as stated in the complaint.
Historically, the western tip of Martha's Vineyard has been home to the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (or Aquinnah). In 1974, the Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head, Inc., sued the Town of Gay Head, asserting aboriginal property rights to certain land within the town.2 In November 1983, the Commonwealth; the Town of Gay Head; the Taxpayers' Association of Gay Head, Inc.; and the Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement that they termed a “Joint Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Settlement of the Gay Head, Massachusetts Indian Land Claims” (the “Settlement Agreement”). The Town and the Taxpayers' Association conveyed to the Wampanoag Tribal Council approximately 400 acres of land (the “Settlement Lands”) to be held “in the same manner, and subject to the same laws, as any other Massachusetts corporation.” (Compl., Ex. A). The Tribal Council relinquished all claims to other lands and waters in the Commonwealth. The Settlement Agreement provided that “[u]nder no circumstances, including any future recognition of the existence of an Indian tribe in the Town of Gay Head, shall the civil or criminal jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ... over the settlement lands ... be impaired or otherwise altered” and “no Indian tribe or band shall ever exercise sovereign jurisdiction” over those lands. (Id. ). The Bureau of Indian Affairs of the United States Department of the Interior later took the Settlement Lands into trust.
In 1985, pursuant to the terms of the Joint Memorandum, the Massachusetts Legislature enacted a statute implementing the Settlement Agreement.3 The Settlement Agreement, however, required the approval of Congress to take effect.
In 1987, before Congress passed the implementing statute, the Department of the Interior officially recognized the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head as an Indian tribe. See 52 Fed.Reg. 4193 (Feb. 10, 1987).
On August 18, 1987, Congress passed the act implementing the Settlement Agreement. See Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head, Inc., Indian Land Claims Settlement Act, Pub.L. No. 100–95, codified at 25 U.S.C § 1771 et seq. (“Wampanoag Settlement Act”). The federal act stated that the Settlement Lands are subject to the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts “including those laws and regulations which prohibit or regulate the conduct of bingo or any other game of chance.”25 U.S.C. § 1771g.
In 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. In part, the IGRA established a regulatory structure for gaming on Indian lands and created the National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”).
Between 2011 and 2013, the Tribe passed and adopted tribal resolutions instituting a gaming ordinance pursuant to the IGRA. On May 30, 2013, the Tribe submitted an amendment to its gaming ordinance to the NIGC. On August 23, 2013, the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor sent a letter to the NIGC opining that the Tribe had jurisdiction to operate a gaming facility on the Settlement Lands. On August 29, 2013, the NIGC approved the Tribe's gaming ordinance, “to the extent that it is consistent with the provisions of IGRA,” by operation of law.4 On October 25, 2013, the NIGC Office of General Counsel sent a letter to the Tribe expressing the opinion that the Settlement Lands were “eligible for gaming.” Soon thereafter, the Tribe announced its intention to open a gaming facility in a community center on those lands.
Massachusetts law prohibits any entity from operating a gaming establishment without a license issued by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 23K, §§ 2, 9, 25. The Tribe has not obtained such a license nor complied with the Massachusetts prerequisites for doing so.
On December 2, 2013, the Commonwealth filed a complaint with the Single Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County against the Tribe, the Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head, Inc., and the Aquinnah Wampanoag Gaming Corporation. The complaint asserted a claim for breach of contract and requested a declaratory judgment that the Settlement Agreement allowed the Commonwealth to prohibit the Tribe from conducting gaming on the Settlement Lands. On December 30, 2013, the Tribe removed the action to this Court on grounds of federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction. On January 29, 2014, the Commonwealth moved to remand the action to state court. The Court denied that motion on July 1, 2014.
On July 10, 2014, both AGHCA and the Town filed motions to intervene. The Court granted those motions on August 6, 2014. On August 27, 2014, the Tribe moved to dismiss the AGHCA complaint on the grounds of sovereign immunity and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On that same day, the Tribe separately moved to dismiss all three complaints, with leave to amend, for failure to join the United States, which it contends is a required party under Fed.R.Civ.P. 19.
On October 24, 2014, the Tribe filed an amended answer to the complaint filed by the Commonwealth. The amended answer included counterclaims against the Commonwealth and claims against three third-party defendants, all of whom are government officials of the Commonwealth sued in their official capacity.5 (For the sake of simplicity, the Court will refer to those claims collectively as the “counterclaims,” and those defendants as “counterclaim-defendants”).6 The counterclaims seek declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the Commonwealth's assertion of jurisdiction over gaming that occurs on the Tribe's trust lands. On November 19, 2014, the Commonwealth and the third-party defendants moved to dismiss the counterclaims.
On a motion to dismiss, the Court “must assume the truth of all well-plead[ed] facts and give plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom.”Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., 496 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.2007) (citing Rogan v. Menino, 175 F.3d 75, 77 (1st Cir.1999) ). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must state a claim that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). That is, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, ... on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cosenza v. City of Worcester
...it is the Superior Court's finding that the identification procedures were unduly suggestive. See, e.g. , Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe , 98 F.Supp.3d 55, 67 (D. Mass 2015) ("Under the later-in time rule of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments, the ... judgment issued five years after .......
-
Aquinnah/Gay Head Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, s. 19-1661
...and held that it precluded the Tribe from contesting the waiver of sovereign immunity in this case. Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, 98 F. Supp. 3d 55, 62–67 (D. Mass. 2015).The Tribe maintains for the first time now, however, that IGRA impliedly repealed the pre-Settlement Act......