N. Fork Rancheria California v. California
| Decision Date | 13 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | 1:15-cv-00419-AWI-SAB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant. |
(Docs. #19, 21)
Plaintiff North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California ("North Fork" or "the Tribe") has brought suit against the State of California ("State" or "California") based on an alleged failure of the State to negotiate in good faith for the purpose of entering into a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of class III gaming activities as required by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA"). See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(A). The parties have filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings. This matter is ripe for adjudication.
The facts in this matter are not in dispute and are largely matters of public record. As will be more fully detailed, this case revolves around a Tribal-State compact which was approved by the Governor and ratified by the legislature before the issue was certified for referendum vote in the November 2014 election. The people of the State of California voted "No" - overturning the legislative ratification of the Tribal-State compact.
In response in part to the Supreme Court's decision in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987), where the Supreme Court rejected an attempt by the State of California to enforce its penal code section prohibiting operation of bingo halls against an Indian tribe, Congress enacted IGRA. 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701, 2702; See Artichoke Joe's California Grand Casino v. Norton, 353 F.3d 712, 714-715 (9th Cir. 2003). IGRA was designed "to provide a statutory basis for the operation and regulation of gaming by Indian tribes." Idaho v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe, --- F.3d ----, 2015 WL 4461055 (9th Cir. July 22, 2015) (citation omitted). IGRA created three classes of gaming, each subject to a different regulatory scheme. Artichoke Joe's, 353 F.3d at 715. Class I gaming consists of "social games solely for prizes of minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming ... in connection with tribal ceremonies or celebrations. 25 U.S.C. § 2703(6). Class II gaming consists of bingo, and card games that are explicitly authorized or not explicitly prohibited by the State. 25 U.S.C. § 2703(7)(A).1 Class III gaming activities are defined residually; all gaming activity that is not class I or class II activity falls within class III. In order for a tribe to conduct class III gaming it must, among other things, enter into a Tribal-State compact with the State.
On March 7, 2000, California voters approved Amendment 1A to the California Constitution, permitting federally recognized Indian tribes to operate certain specified betting games on Indian lands if authorized by the Governor in a Tribal-State compact that is then ratified by the legislature. 2000 Cal. Legis. Serv. Prop. 1A - Gambling on Tribal Lands (Ca. 2000); Cal. Const. Art. IV, § 19(f).
North Fork is a federally recognized Indian tribe, listed in the Federal Register.2 Prior to the initiation of the plan to build a gaming facility, the Tribe possessed only a 61.5 acre-parcel in North Fork, California (which lies within the Sierra National Forest), held in trust by the United States for development of a community center, a youth center, and homes. Complaint, Doc. 1. ("Compl.") at ¶ 33; but see Compl. Exh. B, Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Letter to Gov. Brown, Sept. 1, 2011, Doc 1-4 ("BIA Letter") at 3 (); Compl. at ¶ 31. In 2004, the Tribe put into action its plan to build a gaming facility by starting down the path to acquisition of land in Madera County. Compl. at ¶ 36. A lengthy environmental impact study ("EIS") - with opportunity provided for public notice and comment - was conducted and the results published on August 6, 2010. BIA Letter at 20.
After reviewing the results of the EIS, the submissions of state and local officials and surrounding Indian tribes,3 and the likely economic impact on North Fork and the surrounding communities, the BIA recommended approval of (and requested the California Governor's concurrence with) the Tribe's bid for acquisition in trust of an approximately 305 acre plot of land in Madera County ("Madera parcel") for the benefit of North Fork pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act ("IRA"), 25 U.S.C. § 465, in anticipation of North Fork's construction of a class III gaming facility as contemplated by IGRA. See Compl. at ¶39-40; see generally BIA Letter. California's Governor, Edmund Brown, Jr., gave his concurrence with the BIA recommendation on August 30, 2012. His letter of concurrence detailed his reasoning for supporting the plan: the thoroughness of the federal inquiry; the benefit to North Fork; the benefit to surrounding tribes, as a result of the contributions to the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund; the relatively rural nature of the area that would house the gaming facility; and North Fork's significant historical connection with the land.
On February 5, 2013, the federal government took the Madera parcel into trust for North Fork pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act ("IRA"), 25 U.S.C. § 465, in anticipation of North Fork's construction of a class III gaming facility as contemplated by IGRA. Compl. at ¶¶ 2, 43.
In July of 2004, soon after the Tribe started down the road to acquiring the Madera parcel, it entered into discussions with representatives of the then-Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, regarding framing of a Tribal-State compact. Compl. at ¶ 44. Those discussions bore fruit in April of 2008 when Governor Schwarzenegger and the Tribe executed a gaming compact ("2008 Compact"). However, because the acquisition of the Madera parcel was stalled due to the lengthy EIS process, the 2008 Tribal-State compact was never presented to the legislature.
A second draft of the Tribal-State compact prepared by the Governor's office and the North Fork Tribe was presented to Governor Brown.4 That second draft addressed the concerns raised by the EIS by including provisions designed to minimize the environmental impact of the gaming facility. See Compl. Exh. L, Docs. 1-14 - 1-16 ("2012 Compact"). On the same date that the Governor gave his concurrence to the BIA recommendation for taking the Madera parcel into trust, August 30, 2012, his office executed a Tribal-State compact with North Fork and forwarded that compact to the legislature for ratification. Compl. at ¶ 48. Ratification of the 2012 Compact was proposed in the 2013-2014 California Legislative Session as Assembly Bill 277 ("AB 277").5 AB 277 (Hall), 2013-2014 Leg. Sess. (Cal. July 3, 2013) chaptered at 2013 Stat. Ch. 51; Cal. Govt. Code § 12012.59.
On May 2, 2013, the California Assembly passed AB 277; on June 27, 2013, the California Senate passed AB 277; and on July 3, 2013 the Governor approved AB 277 and it wasfiled with the Secretary of State. See Cal.Govt.Code. § 12012.59. At some time shortly thereafter,6 California's then-Secretary of State, Deborah Bowen, forwarded the compact to the Secretary of the Interior for review and approval pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8). Compl. at ¶ 49. See Cal. Govt. Code § 12012.25(f). On October 22, 2013, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, issued notice that the compact between the State and North Fork was approved (to the extent that it was consistent with IGRA). Notice of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact taking effect, 78 FR 62649-01 (Oct. 22, 2013).
On July 19, 2013, a ballot summary and title were issued by the Attorney General of California's office for what would be commonly known as California Proposition 48 - Referendum on Indian Gaming Compacts (2014).7 On October 1, 2013, proponents of the referendum submitted 784,571 signatures from registered voters in support of placing Proposition 48 on the ballot for the November 2014 election.8 The then-Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, certified that the signatures submitted contained a sufficient number of valid signatures to place the matter on the ballot. Id.; see Cal. Const. Art. II, § 9(b).
On November 4, 2014, California voters rejected Indian Gaming Compacts Referendum, labeled Proposition 48, to ratify the North Fork and Wiyot Tribe compacts.9 Based on that referendum vote, the State of California refuses to recognize the existence of a valid Tribal-State compact with North Fork. The validity of the referendum and compact is the subject of litigation now pending before the California Fifth District Court of Appeal. See Stand Up for California v. State of California et al., 5th DCA Case No. F070327, filed Dec. 27, 2014.
After the 2014 referendum, the State refused to enter into negotiations with North Fork regarding a new Tribal-State compact, concluding that any attempt at negotiation a compact regarding the Madera parcel would be futile. Compl. at ¶ 60, Exh. G. On that basis, North Fork brings the instant action, contending that the State's failure to negotiate triggers the remedial provisions of IGRA.
Section 2710(d)(3)(A) of Title 25 of the United States Code provides:
Any Indian tribe having jurisdiction over the Indian lands upon which a class III gaming activity is being conducted, or is to be conducted, shall request the State in which such lands are located to enter into negotiations for the purpose of entering into a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of gaming activities. Upon receiving such a request, the State shall negotiate with the Indian tribe in good faith to enter into such a compact.
The good faith negotiation section of IGRA is not without teeth. Sections 2710(d)(7)(B...
To continue reading
Request your trial