State v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior

Decision Date15 February 2019
Docket NumberCivil Action No.: 17-2564 (RC)
Parties State of CONNECTICUT and Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR and Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Interior Defendants, and MGM Resorts Global Development, LLC, Defendant-Intervenor.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Keith M. Harper, Catherine F. Munson, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Washington, DC, Mark Francis Kohler, Michael K. Skold, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General, Special Litigation Department, Robert William Clark, Connecticut Attorney General's Office, Hartford, CT, Kaighn Smith, Jr., Robert Lee Gips, Drummond Woodsum Attorneys at Law, Portland, ME, for Plaintiffs.

Devon Lehman McCune, U.S. Department of Justice, Denver, CO, for Defendants.

Kevin F. King, Edward Holden Rippey, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, Neil K. Roman, Covington & Burling LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Intervenor.



RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge


Before this Court is the latest volley in a contentious, long-running battle over a stalled casino project in East Windsor, Connecticut. The state of Connecticut (the "State") and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe claim that the United States Secretary of the Interior has unlawfully declined to approve an agreement that would allow them to begin constructing the casino. Defendants—the Secretary, the Department of the Interior, and MGM Resorts Global Development, LLC—argue that the Secretary has violated no law. Having failed to convince this Court of their first theory of the case, Plaintiffsthe State and the Pequot—seek to amend their complaint and take a second bite at the apple. While Plaintiffs' motion appears to be the product of tactical timing more than newly-discovered information or legal theories, allowing the case to proceed would not unduly prejudice Defendants. And while one of Plaintiffs' three proposed claims would not survive a motion to dismiss, the Court cannot say that amendment would be futile as to the other two claims. Thus, for the reasons stated below, the Court will allow Plaintiffs to amend their complaint in certain respects.

A. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA") governs Class III casino gaming—blackjack, roulette, slot machines, and other casino games—on tribal land. 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq. ; 25 C.F.R. § 502.4 ; Amador Cty. v. Salazar , 640 F.3d 373, 376 (D.C. Cir. 2011). It mandates that a tribe must obtain authorization from a state before conducting Class III gaming on land within that state's borders. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(C). That authorization may be obtained in one of two ways: (1) negotiating a tribal-state compact with the state, see id. § 2710(d)(3)(A) ; or (2) asking the Secretary to impose secretarial procedures, see id. § 2710(d)(7)(B).

A tribal-state compact is "an intergovernmental agreement executed between Tribal and State governments under the [IGRA] that establishes ... the terms and conditions for the operation and regulation of the tribe's Class III gaming activities." 25 C.F.R. § 293.2. If the Secretary does not explicitly approve or disapprove a tribal-state compact within 45 days after the Office of Indian Gaming receives it,2 the compact shall be automatically approved "to the extent the compact is consistent with" the IGRA. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8)(A)(C) ; 25 C.F.R. §§ 293.10 – 12. The Secretary may disapprove a compact for one of three reasons: (1) it violates the IGRA, (2) it violates any other provision of Federal law that does not relate to jurisdiction over gaming on tribal land, or (3) it violates the United States' trust obligations to Native Americans. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8)(B) ; 25 C.F.R. § 293.14. Once a compact is approved, the Secretary must publish that approval in the Federal Register within 90 days from the date of receipt. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8)(D) ; 25 C.F.R. § 293.15(b). The compact becomes effective when its approval is published. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(B) ; 25 C.F.R. § 293.15(a). The Department's regulations apply these same procedural and substantive requirements to compact amendments. See 25 C.F.R. §§ 293.4, 293.10.

Secretarial procedures govern class III tribal gaming when a tribe and a state cannot reach good faith agreement on a compact. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(vii)(II). These procedures result from a series of forced negotiations between the tribe and the state, including mediation. See id. § 2710(d)(7)(A), (B). If the tribe and the state ultimately cannot agree on a compact, "the Secretary shall prescribe, in consultation with the Indian tribe, procedures" for Class III gaming activities "which are consistent with the proposed compact selected by the mediator ... the provisions of [the IGRA], and the relevant provisions of the laws of the [s]tate." Id. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(vii)(I). The Department has not issued regulations governing the secretarial procedures or procedure amendments at issue in this action.3

B. Relevant Facts and Procedural History

In 1989, the Pequot sought to open a casino in Connecticut. See Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Connecticut , 913 F.2d 1024, 1026 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied , 499 U.S. 975, 111 S.Ct. 1620, 113 L.Ed.2d 717 (1991). However, the Pequot and the State could not agree on a tribal-state compact to govern the Pequot's gambling activities. Id. at 1027. The Pequot accordingly availed themselves of the IGRA's secretarial procedures mechanism, and in 1991 the Secretary imposed procedures (the "Pequot Procedures") on the Pequot and the State. See Compl. ¶ 25, ECF No. 1; Notice of Final Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Procedures, 56 Fed. Reg. 24,996 (May 31, 1991). The Pequot's casino has operated under these procedures ever since. In 1994 the State and another tribe, the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (the "Mohegan") (together with the Pequot, the "Tribes"), executed a tribal-state compact (the "Mohegan Compact") allowing the Mohegan to operate their own casino within the State. See Compl. ¶ 24.4

In return for the State allowing the Tribes to operate casinos, the Pequot Procedures and Mohegan Compact Memoranda of Understanding mandate that the State receive a percentage of the Tribes' gross operating revenues from certain gambling activities. See generally Pequot Procedures MOU; Mohegan Compact MOU. They also mandate that if the State permits "any other person" to engage in those activities, the State is no longer entitled to its royalty payments (the "exclusivity clauses"). See id. By their terms both the Pequot Procedures and the Mohegan Compact may be amended only by written agreement of the Tribes and the State, and the amendments do not become effective until the Secretary approves them and publishes notice of that approval in the Federal Register in accordance with 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(B).5 See Pequot Procedures § 17; Mohegan Compact § 17.

In 2015, the Tribes agreed to form a joint venture, MMCT Venture LLC ("MMCT"), to build and operate an off-reservation, commercial casino in East Windsor, Connecticut.6 Decl. of Uri Clinton ("Clinton Decl.") ¶¶ 17–19, ECF No. 11-2; see also MMCT's Articles of Organization, Mem. Supp. MGM's Mot. Leave Intervene Ex. A, ECF No. 11-3. The proposed East Windsor casino project threatened MGM's plans in the region. MGM was in the midst of constructing a casino in Springfield, Massachusetts, a mere twelve miles north of East Windsor. See Pls.' Opp'n to Defs.' Partial Mot. to Dismiss at 9, ECF No. 27; Clinton Decl. ¶¶ 13, 17, 20.7 MGM also planned to pursue a casino project in Bridgeport, Connecticut. See Clinton Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8. It thus lobbied against legislative approval of the Tribes' casino, arguing that Connecticut should implement a competitive selection process for the right to operate the State's first commercial casino. Id. ¶ 6. Those efforts failed, and the Tribes secured their casino project's conditional approval in 2017 through the passage of Public Act 17-89.8 2017 Conn. Acts 17-89 (Reg. Sess.). This setback notwithstanding, MGM continued to push for a Bridgeport casino. See Clinton Decl. ¶¶ 8–10.

Public Act 17-89 states that MMCT "is authorized to conduct authorized games at a casino ... at 171 Bridge Street, East Windsor." 2017 Conn. Acts 17-89 § 14(b) (Reg. Sess.). Its passage did not, however, remove all obstacles from the Tribes' path to operating Connecticut's first commercial casino. Rather, it provides that its "authorization shall not be effective unless":

(1) the Tribes and the State's governor execute "amendments to" the Pequot Procedures and the Mohegan Compact, and their memoranda of understanding, creating a special exemption for MMCT such that "authorization of MMCT ... to conduct [casino] games in the [S]tate does not terminate" the Tribes' obligation to pay the State royalties from their gaming activities;
(2) the amendments "are approved or deemed approved by the Secretary ... pursuant to the [IGRA] ... and its implementing regulations";
(3)(4) the amendments "are approved by" the Connecticut legislature; and
(5) the Tribes pass resolutions providing that the State may sue the Tribes if MMCT fails to pay any fees or taxes due to the State.

Id. § 14(c). To satisfy the Act's conditions, the State and the Tribes agreed to amend the Pequot Procedures and the Mohegan Compact to exempt MMCT from the exclusivity clauses. Compl. ¶ 27.

During the amendment process the Tribes allegedly requested technical assistance from the Office of Indian Gaming, and according to Plaintiffs that Office "repeatedly informed representatives of the Tribes that it intended to approve" the amendments. Id. ¶¶ 28–31. The Tribes and the State duly approved and executed the amendments according to Tribal and State law, id. ¶ 33, and in late July and early August 2017, the Tribes requested that the Office of Indian Gaming formally approve the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Comm. on Ways & Means v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • December 14, 2021
    ...Congress met with any IRS decisionmaker with authority over an audit of Intervenors’ tax returns. See, e.g. , Connecticut v. Dep't of Int'r , 363 F. Supp. 3d 45, 64 (D.D.C. 2019) (holding that the plaintiff had shown a sufficient nexus when the plaintiff alleged that Members of Congress had......
  • Giron v. Zeytuna, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 23, 2022 the proposed amended complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the movant.’ " Connecticut v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior , 363 F. Supp. 3d 45, 57 (D.D.C. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Flaherty v. Pritzker , 322 F.R.D. 44, 46 (D.D.C. 2017) ).21 Because Plaintiffs......
  • Giron v. Zeytuna, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 23, 2022
    ...... state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A ... liability.”); City of Syracuse v. Loomis Armored. US, LLC , 900 F.Supp.2d 274, 290 (W.D.N.Y. 2012). (collecting cases ... U.S. Dep't of the Interior , 363 F.Supp.3d 45, 57. (D.D.C. 2019) (alteration in original) ......
  • Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 9, 2022
    ...... Connecticut v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior , 363. F.Supp.3d 45, 54-55 (D.D.C. 2019) (cleaned up). Still,. ... Dep't of State , 840 F.Supp.2d 92, 113 (D.D.C. 2012). (quoting Miss. Ass'n of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT