17-55604 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHEMEHUEVI INDIAN TRIBE and CHICKEN RANCH RANCHERIA OF ME-WUK INDIANS, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JERRY BROWN, Governor of California, and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendants and Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern District No. 5:16-cv-1347 JFW (MRWx) The Honorable John F. Walter, Judge APPELLEES’ ANSWERING BRIEF XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California SARA J. DRAKE Senior Assistant Attorney General T. MICHELLE LAIRD State Bar No. 162979 JAMES G. WAIAN STATE BAR NO. 152084 Deputy Attorneys General 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 P.O. Box 85266 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 Telephone: (619) 738-9347 Fax: (619) 645-2271 Email: [email protected]Attorneys for Defendants and Appellees Case: 17-55604, 01/17/2018, ID: 10728241, DktEntry: 16, Page 1 of 76
76
Embed
CHEMEHUEVI INDIAN TRIBE and CHICKEN RANCH … · CHICKEN RANCH RANCHERIA OF ... Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California. ... Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
17-55604
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHEMEHUEVI INDIAN TRIBE and CHICKEN RANCH RANCHERIA OF ME-WUK INDIANS,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
JERRY BROWN, Governor of California, and STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendants and Appellees.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern District
No. 5:16-cv-1347 JFW (MRWx) The Honorable John F. Walter, Judge
APPELLEES’ ANSWERING BRIEF
XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California SARA J. DRAKE Senior Assistant Attorney General T. MICHELLE LAIRD State Bar No. 162979 JAMES G. WAIAN STATE BAR NO. 152084 Deputy Attorneys General
600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 P.O. Box 85266 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 Telephone: (619) 738-9347 Fax: (619) 645-2271 Email: [email protected]
Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 Jurisdictional Statement ................................................................................. 3 Issues Presented ............................................................................................. 4 Statutory Authority ........................................................................................ 5 Statement of the Case .................................................................................... 5 Summary of the Argument .......................................................................... 12 Argument ..................................................................................................... 14
I. Standard of review .................................................................. 14 A. The standard of review is de novo ................................ 14 B. IGRA is interpreted applying traditional tools of
statutory construction .................................................... 15 1. The “plain meaning rule” is the preeminent
rule of statutory construction .............................. 16 2. When ambiguity exists, courts look beyond
the text to determine congressional intent .......... 17 II. The duration of a tribal-state class III gaming compact is
a proper subject of negotiation under the plain language of IGRA ................................................................................... 19 A. A plain language analysis of IGRA establishes that
compact duration is a proper subject of negotiations ................................................................... 19
B. Interpretive case law and IGRA’s legislative history support a conclusion that compact duration is a proper subject of negotiations ................................ 27
III. Bay Mills does not compel an interpretation of IGRA that prohibits negotiations over the duration of a tribal-state class III gaming compact ........................................................ 33
IV. IGRA’s purposes are not thwarted by compact duration provisions ................................................................................ 38
V. The agency charged with administering IGRA construes it as authorizing compact duration provisions and its interpretation should be accorded deference under Chevron and Skidmore ............................................................ 40 A. Chevron deference ........................................................ 41 B. Skidmore deference ....................................................... 43
VI. The Indian canon of statutory construction is inapplicable under these circumstances ....................................................... 46
VII. In the event of reversal, this matter should be remanded for a determination of the appropriate remedy ....................... 50
Conclusion ................................................................................................... 51 Statement of Related Cases.......................................................................... 52 Certificate of Compliance ............................................................................ 53 Addendum to Statutory Provision (25 U.S.C. § 2710) ................................ 54
Artichoke Joe’s v. Norton 216 F.2d at 1092 .........................................................................................6
Artichoke Joe’s v. Norton 216 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (E.D. Cal. 2002) ......................................................5
Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California 759 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ................................................... 37
Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California 789 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) ................................................... 37
California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 480 U.S. 202 (1987)....................................................................................5
Chevron USA v. Natural Res. Def. Council 467 U.S. 837 (1984).......................................................................... passim
Church of Scientology v. United States Dep’t of Justice 612 F.2d 417 (9th Cir. 1979) ................................................................... 17
Endicott v. Rosenthal 216 Cal. 721 (1932) ................................................................................. 50
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Gerlach 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150037 (D. S.D. Sept. 15, 2017) ................. 35, 36
Glob. Exec. Mgmt. Sols. v. IBM 260 F. Supp. 3d 1345 (D. Or. 2017) ........................................................ 50
Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. 458 U.S. 564 (1982)................................................................................. 16
Harrison v. Northern Trust Co. 317 U.S. 476 (1943)................................................................................. 17
Hotel Emp. & Rest. Emps. Int’l Union v. Davis 21 Cal. 4th 585 (1999) ................................................................................8
In re Indian Gaming Related Cases 331 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2003) .......................................................... passim
Lively v. Wild Oats Mkts., Inc. 456 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................... 15
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community __ U.S. __ (2014) ................................................................... 33, 34, 35, 36
Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians 471 U.S. 759 (1985)................................................................................. 46
Nationsbank of N.C., N.A. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. 513 U.S. 251 (1995)................................................................................. 44
Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation v. Schwarzenegger 602 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................... 28, 29, 37
Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians v. Wilson 64 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................... 16
Skidmore v. Swift & Co. 323 U.S. 134 (1944) ......................................................................... passim
Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp. 671 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 17
Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, § 12.05[2], 890-91 (Nell Jessup Newton ed., 2012) ............................................................... 22
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1166-1168 .................................................................................................. passim
Interpretive Case Law ................................................................................... 27
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
California Constitution article IV § 19 .............................................................................................................8 § 19(e) .........................................................................................................8 § 19(f) .........................................................................................................9
In 1999, the State of California and dozens of Indian tribes negotiated
and entered into a class III1 tribal-state gaming compact (“1999 Compact” or
“Compact”) pursuant to the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988,
18 U.S.C. §§ 1166-1168 and 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. (IGRA). Cal. Gov’t
Code § 12012.25. The 1999 Compact includes an express duration
provision establishing an agreed-upon termination date of December 31,
2020. ER 253.2 Anticipating a period of renegotiation of unknown duration
preceding the 1999 Compact’s termination date, it provides for an automatic
extension to June 30, 2022 if an amendment or a new compact has not been
entered into by December 31, 2020. Id. With the prospect of the 1999
Compact expiring by its own terms during the impending decade, many
California tribes and the State of California have negotiated and entered into
1 Class III gaming “includes the types of high-stakes games usually
associated with Nevada-style gambling. Class III gaming is subject to a greater degree of federal-state regulation than either class I [social games] or class II [bingo and certain non-banked card games] gaming.” In re Indian Gaming Related Cases, 331 F.3d 1094, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2003) (Coyote Valley).
2 Citations to “ER __” refer to pages in the Excerpts of Record filed
with Appellants’ opening brief. Citations to “SER __ ” refer to pages in the Supplemental Excerpts of Record filed with Appellees’ brief. Citations to “Opening Br. __” refer to pages in Appellants’ opening brief.
a state that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person,
organization, or entity; and (3) conducted in conformance with a tribal-state
compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the state and approved by the
Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (Secretary). 25
U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1) & (d)(3)(B).
An Indian tribe is not authorized to operate class III gaming on its lands
absent a compact with the state, 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(B), or the
implementation of “procedures” by the Secretary following a judicial finding
of bad faith negotiating by the state and other remedial prerequisites. Coyote
Valley, 331 F.3d at 1097-98 (explaining that lawful class III tribal gaming is
gaming conducted in conformance with a compact or conditions prescribed
by the Secretary); see 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(i)-(vii).
In 1999, Governor Gray Davis commenced compact negotiations with
a group of California Indian tribes. Coyote Valley, 331 F.3d at 1102.6 A
judicial ruling by the California Supreme Court released while those
negotiations were underway invalidated the Proposition 5 statutory initiative
6 Coyote Valley recounts extensively the events leading to the
enactment of IGRA, the passage of Proposition 5 (which sought to obligate California to enter into a model compact), the outcome of court challenges to Proposition 5, and the subsequent compact negotiations conducted pursuant to IGRA between California and dozens of Indian tribes resulting in the 1999 Compact. See 331 F.3d at 1095-106.
entered into the 1999 Compact in the fall of 1999, ER 180, 249, and their
compacts went into effect in May, 2000, after the passage of Proposition 1A
authorized California’s governor to negotiate and conclude compacts
pursuant to the state constitution, Cal. Const. art. IV, § 19(f), and upon
affirmative approval of the compacts by the Assistant Secretary of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (Assistant Secretary). “Notice of Approved Tribal-
State Compacts,” 65 Fed. Reg. 95, p. 31189 (May 16, 2000); ER 22-24, 140,
203-205, 207, 209, 270-272, 274.7
The 1999 Compact contains a duration provision that provides, in part,
at section 11.2:
Sec. 11.2. Term of Compact; Termination.
Sec. 11.2.1. Effective. (a) Once effective this Compact shall be in full force and effect for state law purposes until December 31, 2020. No sooner than eighteen (18) months prior to the aforementioned termination date, either party may request the other party to enter into negotiations to extend this Compact or to enter into a new compact. If the parties have not agreed to extend the date of this Compact or entered into a new compact by the termination date, this Compact will automatically be extended to June 30, 2022, unless the parties have agreed to an earlier termination date.[8]
7 Appellants’ 1999 Compacts are substantively identical. Compare
ER 140-200 with ER 209-268. For ease of reference, specific compact provisions will be identified by their section number.
8 The duration provision was modified by agreement to add the last
two sentences shortly after the tribes executed the 1999 Compact, and the modified language is included in Addendum “A” thereto. ER 176, 184.
their reading of IGRA and explaining the basis for the State’s position. ER
27, 324-328. The Tribes’ lawsuit followed.9 ER 27.
This appeal by the Tribes is from a judgment issued in favor of the
State following the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.10 In the
trial court, the parties agreed that IGRA is clear and unambiguous regarding
its authorization for negotiations over the duration of a compact, but they
disagreed on the outcome of the plain-meaning analysis of the relevant
statutory text.
In ruling in favor of the State, the Honorable John F. Walter, district
judge for the United States District Court, Central District of California, held
that duration of a compact is a permissible subject of negotiations because it
qualifies as either a “standard for the operation . . . of [a] gaming facility”
under 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(C)(vi), or as “directly related to the operation
of gaming activities” under 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(C)(vii). ER 9. The
9 Although the Tribes filed suit in the midst of compact negotiations,
they did not allege that the State failed to conduct the negotiations in good faith under 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(A) & (d)(7)(A)(i). The Tribes’ suit challenged only the duration provision in their operative 1999 Compacts. As a remedy, the Tribes sought a declaration that the duration provision was void, that it be severed from the 1999 Compact, and that all remaining provisions remain in force in perpetuity. Compl. for Declaratory & Inj. Relief, ECF No. 1.
10 The State adopts the tribes’ description in their opening brief of the
statutory interpretation, even when the statute’s meaning seems clear on its
face. Church of Scientology v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 612 F.2d 417,
421-22 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Harrison v. Northern Trust Co., 317 U.S.
476, 479 (1943) (stating that no rule of law forbids resort to legislative
history no matter how clear statutory language may appear). Likewise, the
rule permits a court to look to the object and policy behind the statutory
scheme if instructive or as lending support to a court’s plain language
analysis. Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 671 F.3d 726, 728 (9th Cir.
2011). As well, a court may look to prior decisions construing the
implicated statute. See e.g., United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp., 465 U.S.
792, 798 (1984).11
2. When Ambiguity Exists, Courts Look Beyond the Text to Determine Congressional Intent
When the text of a statute is not dispositive of its meaning due to
ambiguity or uncertainty, a court will look beyond the statutory language
and turn to the legislative history, the purpose of the statutory scheme, and
any existing construction of the statute by the administering agency as a
guide to congressional intent. Chevron, 467 U.S. 837 passim; Adams Fruit
11 To the extent the Tribes are suggesting that IGRA is itself evolving,
rather than merely being interpreted by the courts over time (see Opening Br., pp. 25-29), that view is inconsistent with the plain meaning rule as the cardinal canon for determining congressional intent.
Co. v. Barrett, 494 U.S. 638, 642 (1990). A recent Ninth Circuit opinion
expressed the rule succinctly:
“[I]f the plain meaning of the statutory text remains unclear after consulting internal indicia of congressional intent, we may then turn to extrinsic indicators, such as legislative history, to help resolve the ambiguity.” Hernandez v. Williams, Zinman & Parham PC, 829 F.3d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir. 2016) . . . . Moreover, when a statute is ambiguous and we have the benefit of an administrative agency’s interpretation, we may defer to it if it is “based on a permissible construction of the statute.”
gaming activities will remain in effect. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a
more direct relationship than the one between the operation of gaming
activities and the length of time those activities are to be governed by the
terms and conditions of a particular gaming compact. This conclusion
results from a common sense reading of 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(C)(vi) and
(vii) and consideration of IGRA as a whole. See Cohen’s Handbook of
Federal Indian Law, § 12.05[2], 890-91 (Nell Jessup Newton ed., 2012)
(tribal-state compacts “are often subject to amendments, as well as new
negotiations if they have sunset provisions. . . . Tribal compacts often
contain terms regarding duration. Where no such terms exist, the compact is
presumed to run indefinitely and neither party may unilaterally terminate a
compact.”).
Contracts of all types typically include provisions covering termination,
as well as dispute resolution, severability, forum selection, process for
amendment, and other important components of effective agreements.
Certainly, IGRA does not expressly prohibit a tribe and a state from
negotiating over these or other similarly common contract provisions.12
12 IGRA identifies the intended tribal-state agreement as a “compact”
in recognition of its status as an agreement between governments on a matter of mutual concern. See Compact, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (5th ed. 1979). But a compact is, after all, a contract. Texas v. New Mexico, 482 U.S. 124,
The Tribes maintain that 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1) provides tribes with an
“absolute right” to conduct class III gaming that a duration provision
thwarts. But the right to conduct class III gaming is subject to specified
conditions and one of the necessary predicates is that the gaming must be
128 (1987). Nothing in IGRA evidences an intent by Congress to entirely distinguish IGRA compacts from traditional contracts with respect to the inclusion of common contract provisions such as duration. See e.g., 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(C)(v) (available remedies for “breach of contract” are unrestricted).
“good-faith” requirement out of existence and deems IGRA’s remedial
scheme inadequate.13
Finally, when Congress determined to specify the duration of a contract
authorized by IGRA it did so in explicit terms. Title 25 U.S.C. § 2711(b)(5)
specifies that management contracts may not exceed a term of five years, or
seven years under certain conditions.14 “In perpetuity” is a specific
13 Section 12.1 of the 1999 Compact provides that the parties may
enter into renegotiations by mutual agreement. The Tribes and the State have agreed to participate in such negotiations. ER 26, 321-322. This belies any suggestion that the State intends to rely on the duration provision to terminate the Tribes’ ability to conduct gaming. From 2012 to the present, California entered into and submitted to the Secretary more than a dozen compacts that are now in effect. SER 20-124, 244-277. The Secretary also prescribed “procedures” for certain California tribes within that same time period. SER 177-182. Each of these compacts and the Secretarial “procedures,” a sampling of which are included in the record, include termination dates well beyond June, 2022. SER 20-124, 177-182.
14 Congress placed far greater restrictions and imposed more stringent
standards on management contracts for good reason. Those standards reflect Congress’s recognition that management contracts are commercial in nature and typically involve private entities. By contrast, compacts are largely regulatory in scope, and are reached between governments. In discussing concerns that IGRA would require existing management contracts to be subject to a new standard five-year term, the Senate Committee Report contrasted compacts in a manner recognizing that compacts may include duration clauses:
Some concern has been expressed that the bill
requires that existing management contracts be made consistent with the provisions of the bill that limit contract terms to 5 years and fee percentages to 30 percent (see sections 12(b)(5) and 12(c) and 13(c)). Compacts may, of course, provide for additional renewal terms. . . . In the area of gaming where many factors other than ordinary business risk enter into the equation, the Committee has no reluctance in requiring changes to existing gambling enterprise contracts . . . . [T]he members of the Committee believe that term of
guided in its interpretation of IGRA by IGRA’s legislative history, which
provides that the “terms of each compact may vary extensively” and that,
Section [](d)(3)(C) describes the issues that may be the subject of negotiations between a tribe and a State in reaching a compact. The Committee recognizes that subparts of each of the broad areas may be more inclusive. For example, licensing issues under clause vi may include agreements on days and hours of operation, wage and pot limits, types of wagers, and size and capacity of the proposed facility.
Id. at 1109, 1113 (brackets in orig.) (citing Senate Committee Report at 14);
SER 192-227. Coyote Valley also recognized that Congress’s purpose in
limiting the subject categories to be negotiated to those bearing a direct
relationship to the operation of gaming activities was to prevent compacts
from being used as a subterfuge for imposing state jurisdiction on tribes
concerning issues unrelated to gaming. Id. at 1109, 1111. A duration
provision does not impose state jurisdiction over tribes on matters unrelated
to gaming so as to run afoul of that particular congressional concern.
In Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation
v. Schwarzenegger, 602 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010) (Rincon), another case
involving allegations of bad faith, this Court allowed, albeit in dicta, that the
duration of a compact is a routine subject for negotiation under IGRA. Id. at
1039. But while Rincon did not specifically involve a challenge to a
proposed duration provision, in finding that the State could not require
general fund revenue sharing in exchange for “basic gaming rights” such as
“more devices or time,” this Circuit viewed compact duration as being
within the permissible scope of 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(C)(vi). Id. at 1030,
1039 n.20.16 In so holding, this Court stated, “[w]e are . . . influenced by the
fact that the Department of the Interior, the executive agency charged with
approving gaming compacts, also interprets IGRA in this way,” a conclusion
it reached based on the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs’ stated view
that:
[w]e have not . . . authorize[d] revenue-sharing payments in exchange for compact terms that are routinely negotiated by the parties as part of the regulation of gaming activities, such as duration, number of gaming devices, hour of operation, and wager limits.
Id.17
Thus, neither tribal revenue sharing, tribal-labor relations, nor
additional time for a compact are expressly delineated in IGRA, yet this
Court has viewed those issues, and other topics, as falling within the
meaning of 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(c) subsections (vi) and (vii), at least in
the context of bad-faith litigation.
16 Rincon’s reference to “time” was to an extension to the duration of
the Rincon Band’s then-existing compact. Id. 17 As the more general category (“any other subjects”), 25 U.S.C. §
2710(d)(3)(C)(vii) should be read at least as broadly as, if not more broadly than, § 2710(d)(3)(C)(vi), which the Rincon Court regarded as embracing compact duration.
IV. IGRA’S PURPOSES ARE NOT THWARTED BY COMPACT DURATION PROVISIONS
Appellants contend that the duration provision has the effect of
preventing them from obtaining financing, thus impacting their ability to
construct new or expanded gaming operations, which in turn impacts their
ability to generate the revenues necessary to provide tribal government
programs and services for their members.19 Opening Br., pp. 17-18, 56-58.
They contend that these alleged effects frustrate and conflict with IGRA’s
purposes. Id.
That Congress passed IGRA to improve tribes’ economic development
opportunities is not in dispute. IGRA’s express purpose is to provide a
statutory basis for the operation of gaming “as a means of promoting” tribal
economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments, to
shield tribal gaming from corrupting influences, and to protect tribal gaming
“as a means of generating” tribal revenue. 25 U.S.C. § 2702. But nothing in
IGRA or its legislative history demonstrates that Congress intended IGRA to
19 In the district court, the Tribes relied primarily on declarations to
substantiate their respective difficulties in obtaining financing and establish other matters unique to each tribe. The State disputed and objected to much of this evidence. ER 18-57, SER 1-18. The district court did not rely on any disputed facts in reaching its decision, finding those facts to be immaterial to its disposition of the cross-motions, and it overruled the parties’ objections to evidence upon which it did rely. ER 3-4.
other commercial enterprises in order to generate additional revenue, that
effect would not frustrate any stated goal of IGRA. Other factors are likely
to have influenced the availability of financing (e.g., geographic location and
scope and cost of the proposed projects). While IGRA established a
statutory basis for the operation of gaming, it did not endeavor to insulate
tribes from market forces or to remove all barriers to tribal gaming
operations generating sufficient revenues to meet tribal needs.20
Appellants have benefitted from IGRA as Congress intended. Both
entered into class III gaming compacts, obtained financing during the term
of the 1999 Compact, opened class III casinos, and continue to operate those
facilities many years after entering into the Compact. This is a result IGRA
intended.
V. THE AGENCY CHARGED WITH ADMINISTERING IGRA CONSTRUES IT AS AUTHORIZING COMPACT DURATION PROVISIONS AND ITS INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE ACCORDED DEFERENCE UNDER CHEVRON AND SKIDMORE
If this Court deems the plain language of IGRA, its legislative history,
and the case law interpreting the pertinent provisions to be insufficient in
20 California has recently negotiated compacts that include provisions
affording tribes flexibility and meaningful access to evolving capital markets. This further undermines the Tribes’ argument that a perpetual compact is the sole solution to their funding issues. SER 244-277.
1999 Compact),22 and its deeming approved other compacts with duration
provisions, is entitled to traditional deference under Skidmore. Skidmore
holds that a federal agency administering its own statute merits deference
where the agency has specialized experience, holds broader information that
may be brought to bear on the question, and has shown consistency in its
determinations. Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 139-40; see also Mead, 533 U.S. at
227-28, 234-35.
Under 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8)(A), the Secretary is authorized to
affirmatively approve a submitted tribal-state class III gaming compact. The
Secretary is authorized to disapprove a submitted compact only if he or she
determines that it violates IGRA, federal law, or the United States’ trust
obligations to Indians. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8)(B). If the Secretary does not
approve or disapprove a submitted compact before the expiration of forty-
five days, it shall be considered to have been approved, and thus takes effect
by operation of law, “but only to the extent the compact is consistent” with
the provisions of IGRA. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8)(C).
22 Arguably, the Assistant Secretary’s letters affirmatively approving
the 1999 Compacts, ER 203-205, ER 270-272, are also entitled to Chevron deference because the approvals constitute the agency’s final, considered judgment that the 1999 Compact is consistent with IGRA. See, e.g., Nationsbank of N.C., N.A. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U.S. 251, 256-58 (1995) (according Chevron deference to approval letter from Comptroller of the Currency, who bore statutory responsibility for enforcement of the statute at issue).
The Assistant Secretary affirmatively approved the 1999 Compact
containing a duration provision (ER 203-205, 270-272), and has consistently
over time either affirmatively approved or considered to be approved
compacts with duration provisions between California and other Indian
tribes (ER 40), including numerous class III gaming compacts presented to
the Secretary for approval since 2012.23 SER 20-124. The Secretary and
Assistant Secretary have also consistently approved or considered to be
approved compacts between other states and tribes containing duration
provisions. ER 40, SER 126-175. Furthermore, the agency construes IGRA
to not require Secretarial review and approval at all when a submitted
compact contains only a date extension to an existing compact, meaning that
compact end dates are anticipated. 25 C.F.R. § 293.5. This regulation
would be unnecessary if class III compacts were required to be in perpetuity.
The State’s review of all available tribal-state class III gaming compacts
reviewed by the Secretary or Assistant Secretary since the passage of IGRA
has revealed no occasion of agency disapproval of a compact because it
23 The California Gambling Control Commission maintains on its
website copies of all tribal-state compacts entered into between California and Indian tribes and in effect. http://www.cgcc.ca.gov/?pageID=compacts (last visited January 15, 2018).
included a duration clause, and no expression of doubt about the lawfulness
of a compact because it included a duration clause.24
These numerous agency determinations constitute compelling evidence
that the agency charged with implementing IGRA and having specialized
expertise in the relevant area construes IGRA as authorizing negotiations
over timeframes for the operation of class III gaming activities. Its policies
and standards are entitled to at least Skidmore deference.
VI. THE INDIAN CANON OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION IS INAPPLICABLE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
Even if this Court were to reach the question of whether the Indian
canon of statutory construction should be applied, it does not dictate the
result Appellants would have this Court adopt. Appellants argue that under
the Indian canon of construction as stated in Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of
Indians, 471 U.S. 759, 766 (1985), any ambiguity in IGRA should be
resolved in favor of the tribes. Opening Br., p. 54. The parties agree that 25
U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(C) does not use the term “duration” or otherwise
specifically refer to a synonymous term. But Appellants have not identified
24 The BIA maintains on its website copies of class III gaming
compacts entered into between the several states and Indian tribes, along with associated Secretarial approval letters and Federal Register notices. https://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/AS-IA/OIG/Compacts/index.htm (last visited Jan. 16, 2018).
any ambiguities in 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(C), and the Ninth Circuit has
specifically held that 2710(d)(3)(C)(vii) is not ambiguous. See Coyote
Valley, 331 F.3d at 1111. Moreover, even if IGRA were to be considered
ambiguous on this point, the deference accorded administrative construction
of a statute under Chevron trumps the Indian canon of construction. The
decision in Williams v. Babbitt, 115 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 1997), explains the
Ninth Circuit’s view on the question:
We regard [the Indian canon] as a mere “guideline and not a substantive law.” Shields v. United States, 698 F.2d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, 471 U.S. 759, 770, 85 L. Ed. 2d 753 (1985), 105 S. Ct. 2399 (White, J., dissenting) (“this rule is no more than a canon of construction”). We have therefore held that the liberal construction rule must give way to agency interpretations that deserve Chevron deference because Chevron is a substantive rule of law. See, e.g., Haynes v. United States, 891 F.2d 235, 239 (9th Cir. 1989); Shields, 698 F.2d at 991.
Id. at 663 n.5.
Even if this Court were to consider its application here, the Indian
canon requires a determination that all tribal interests are aligned and that
the statutory construction is favorable to all Indians, not just to the tribe
requesting the determination. Rancheria v. Jewell, 776 F.3d 706, 713 (9th
Cir. 2015). Appellants argue that in all circumstances, application of the
Indian canon would require this Court to interpret IGRA so that a duration
provision should not be included in compacts because such a provision is
This would impact all tribes with 1999 Compacts and, potentially, could
impact all class III gaming compacts in California.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the State respectfully requests that this
Court affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the
State.
Dated: January 17, 2018
Respectfully submitted, XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California SARA J. DRAKE Senior Assistant Attorney General JAMES G. WAIAN DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL S/T. MICHELLE LAIRD T. MICHELLE LAIRD Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants and Appellees
CHEMEHUEVI INDIAN TRIBE, and CHICKEN RANCH RANCHERIA OF ME-WUK INDIANS,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
JERRY BROWN, Governor of California, and STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendants and Appellees.
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
To the best of our knowledge, there are no related cases.
Dated: January 17, 2018
Respectfully Submitted, XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California SARA J. DRAKE Senior Assistant Attorney General JAMES G. WAIAN Deputy Attorney General S/T. MICHELLE LAIRD T. MICHELLE LAIRD Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants and Appellees
(a) Jurisdiction over class I and class II gaming activity
(1) Class I gaming on Indian lands is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Indian tribes and shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter.
(2) Any class II gaming on Indian lands shall continue to be within the jurisdiction of the Indian tribes, but shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter.
(b) Regulation of class II gaming activity; net revenue allocation; audits; contracts
(1) An Indian tribe may engage in, or license and regulate, class II gaming on Indian lands within such tribe's jurisdiction, if—
(A) such Indian gaming is located within a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization or entity (and such gaming is not otherwise specifically prohibited on Indian lands by Federal law), and
(B) the governing body of the Indian tribe adopts an ordinance or resolution which is approved by the Chairman.
A separate license issued by the Indian tribe shall be required for each place, facility, or location on Indian lands at which class II gaming is conducted.
(2) The Chairman shall approve any tribal ordinance or resolution concerning the conduct, or regulation of class II gaming on the Indian lands within the tribe's jurisdiction if such ordinance or resolution provides that—
(A) except as provided in paragraph (4), the Indian tribe will have the sole proprietary interest and responsibility for the conduct of any gaming activity;
(B) net revenues from any tribal gaming are not to be used for purposes other than—
(i) to fund tribal government operations or programs;
(ii) to provide for the general welfare of the Indian tribe and its members;
(iii) to promote tribal economic development;
(iv) to donate to charitable organizations; or
(v) to help fund operations of local government agencies;
(C) annual outside audits of the gaming, which may be encompassed within existing independent tribal audit systems, will be provided by the Indian tribe to the Commission;
(D) all contracts for supplies, services, or concessions for a contract amount in excess of $25,000 annually (except contracts for professional legal or accounting services) relating to such gaming shall be subject to such independent audits;
(E) the construction and maintenance of the gaming facility, and the operation of that gaming is conducted in a manner which adequately protects the environment and the public health and safety; and
(F) there is an adequate system which—
(i) ensures that background investigations are conducted on the primary management officials and key employees of the gaming enterprise and that oversight of such officials and their management is conducted on an ongoing basis; and
(ii) includes—
(I) tribal licenses for primary management officials and key employees of the gaming enterprise with prompt notification to the Commission of the issuance of such licenses;
(II) a standard whereby any person whose prior activities, criminal record, if any, or reputation, habits and associations pose a threat to the public interest or to the effective regulation of gaming, or create or enhance the dangers of unsuitable, unfair, or illegal practices and methods and activities in the conduct of gaming shall not be eligible for employment; and
(III) notification by the Indian tribe to the Commission of the results of such background check before the issuance of any of such licenses.
(3) Net revenues from any class II gaming activities conducted or licensed by any Indian tribe may be used to make per capita payments to members of the Indian tribe only if—
(A) the Indian tribe has prepared a plan to allocate revenues to uses authorized by paragraph (2)(B);
(B) the plan is approved by the Secretary as adequate, particularly with respect to uses described in clause (i) or (iii) of paragraph (2)(B);
(C) the interests of minors and other legally incompetent persons who are entitled to receive any of the per capita payments are protected and preserved and the per capita payments are disbursed to the parents or legal guardian of such minors or legal incompetents in such amounts as may be necessary for the health, education, or welfare, of the minor or other legally incompetent person under a plan approved by the Secretary and the governing body of the Indian tribe; and
(D) the per capita payments are subject to Federal taxation and tribes notify members of such tax liability when payments are made.
(4)(A) A tribal ordinance or resolution may provide for the licensing or regulation of class II gaming activities owned by any person or entity other than the Indian tribe and conducted on Indian lands, only if the tribal licensing requirements include the requirements described in the subclauses of subparagraph (B)(i) and are at least as restrictive as those established by State law governing similar gaming within the jurisdiction of the State within which such Indian lands are located. No person or entity, other than the Indian tribe, shall be eligible to receive a tribal license to own a class II gaming activity conducted on Indian lands within the jurisdiction of the Indian tribe if such person or entity would not be eligible to receive a State license to conduct the same activity within the jurisdiction of the State.
(B)(i) The provisions of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph and the provisions of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) shall not bar the
continued operation of an individually owned class II gaming operation that was operating on September 1, 1986, if—
(I) such gaming operation is licensed and regulated by an Indian tribe pursuant to an ordinance reviewed and approved by the Commission in accordance with section 2712 of this title,
(II) income to the Indian tribe from such gaming is used only for the purposes described in paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection,
(III) not less than 60 percent of the net revenues is income to the Indian tribe, and
(IV) the owner of such gaming operation pays an appropriate assessment to the National Indian Gaming Commission under section 2717(a)(1) of this title for regulation of such gaming.
(ii) The exemption from the application of this subsection provided under this subparagraph may not be transferred to any person or entity and shall remain in effect only so long as the gaming activity remains within the same nature and scope as operated on October 17, 1988.
(iii) Within sixty days of October 17, 1988, the Secretary shall prepare a list of each individually owned gaming operation to which clause (i) applies and shall publish such list in the Federal Register.
(c) Issuance of gaming license; certificate of self-regulation
(1) The Commission may consult with appropriate law enforcement officials concerning gaming licenses issued by an Indian tribe and shall have thirty days to notify the Indian tribe of any objections to issuance of such license.
(2) If, after the issuance of a gaming license by an Indian tribe, reliable information is received from the Commission indicating that a primary management official or key employee does not meet the standard established under subsection (b)(2)(F)(ii)(II) of this section, the Indian tribe shall suspend such license and, after notice and hearing, may revoke such license.
(3) Any Indian tribe which operates a class II gaming activity and which—
(A) has continuously conducted such activity for a period of not less than three years, including at least one year after October 17, 1988; and
(B) has otherwise complied with the provisions of this sectioni may petition the Commission for a certificate of self-regulation.
(4) The Commission shall issue a certificate of self-regulation if it determines from available information, and after a hearing if requested by the tribe, that the tribe has—
(A) conducted its gaming activity in a manner which—
(i) has resulted in an effective and honest accounting of all revenues;
(ii) has resulted in a reputation for safe, fair, and honest operation of the activity; and
(iii) has been generally free of evidence of criminal or dishonest activity;
(B) adopted and is implementing adequate systems for—
(i) accounting for all revenues from the activity;
(ii) investigation, licensing, and monitoring of all employees of the gaming activity; and
(iii) investigation, enforcement and prosecution of violations of its gaming ordinance and regulations; and
(C) conducted the operation on a fiscally and economically sound basis.
(5) During any year in which a tribe has a certificate for self-regulation—
(A) the tribe shall not be subject to the provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of section 2706(b) of this title;
(B) the tribe shall continue to submit an annual independent audit as required by subsection (b)(2)(C) of this section and shall submit to the Commission a complete resume on all employees hired and licensed by the tribe subsequent to the issuance of a certificate of self-regulation; and
(C) the Commission may not assess a fee on such activity pursuant to section 2717 of this title in excess of one quarter of 1 per centum of the gross revenue.
(6) The Commission may, for just cause and after an opportunity for a hearing, remove a certificate of self-regulation by majority vote of its members.
(d) Class III gaming activities; authorization; revocation; Tribal-State compact
(1) Class III gaming activities shall be lawful on Indian lands only if such activities are—
(A) authorized by an ordinance or resolution that—
(i) is adopted by the governing body of the Indian tribe having jurisdiction over such lands,
(ii) meets the requirements of subsection (b) of this section, and
(iii) is approved by the Chairman,
(B) located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity, and
(C) conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the State under paragraph (3) that is in effect.
(2)(A) If any Indian tribe proposes to engage in, or to authorize any person or entity to engage in, a class III gaming activity on Indian lands of the Indian tribe, the governing body of the Indian tribe shall adopt and submit to the Chairman an ordinance or resolution that meets the requirements of subsection (b) of this section.
(B) The Chairman shall approve any ordinance or resolution described in subparagraph (A), unless the Chairman specifically determines that—
(i) the ordinance or resolution was not adopted in compliance with the governing documents of the Indian tribe, or
(ii) the tribal governing body was significantly and unduly influenced in the adoption of such ordinance or resolution by any person identified in section 2711(e)(1)(D) of this title.
Upon the approval of such an ordinance or resolution, the Chairman shall publish in the Federal Register such ordinance or resolution and the order of approval.
(C) Effective with the publication under subparagraph (B) of an ordinance or resolution adopted by the governing body of an Indian tribe that has been approved by the Chairman under subparagraph (B), class III gaming activity on the Indian lands of the Indian tribe shall be fully subject to the terms and conditions of the Tribal-State compact entered into under paragraph (3) by the Indian tribe that is in effect.
(D)(i) The governing body of an Indian tribe, in its sole discretion and without the approval of the Chairman, may adopt an ordinance or resolution revoking any prior ordinance or resolution that authorized class III gaming on the Indian lands of the Indian tribe. Such revocation shall render class III gaming illegal on the Indian lands of such Indian tribe.
(ii) The Indian tribe shall submit any revocation ordinance or resolution described in clause (i) to the Chairman. The Chairman shall publish such ordinance or resolution in the Federal Register and the revocation provided by such ordinance or resolution shall take effect on the date of such publication.
(iii) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection—
(I) any person or entity operating a class III gaming activity pursuant to this paragraph on the date on which an ordinance or resolution described in clause (i) that revokes authorization for such class III gaming activity is published in the Federal Register may, during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which such revocation ordinance or resolution is published under clause (ii), continue to operate such activity in conformance with the Tribal-State compact entered into under paragraph (3) that is in effect, and
(II) any civil action that arises before, and any crime that is committed before, the close of such 1-year period shall not be affected by such revocation ordinance or resolution.
(3)(A) 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.
(B) Any State and any Indian tribe may enter into a Tribal-State compact governing gaming activities on the Indian lands of the Indian tribe, but such compact shall take effect only when notice of approval by the Secretary of such compact has been published by the Secretary in the Federal Register.
(C) Any Tribal-State compact negotiated under subparagraph (A) may include provisions relating to—
(i) 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 activity;
(ii) the allocation of criminal and civil jurisdiction between the State and the Indian tribe necessary for the enforcement of such laws and regulations;
(iii) the assessment by the State of such activities in such amounts as are necessary to defray the costs of regulating such activity;
(iv) taxation by the Indian tribe of such activity in amounts comparable to amounts assessed by the State for comparable activities;
(v) remedies for breach of contract;
(vi) standards for the operation of such activity and maintenance of the gaming facility, including licensing; and
(vii) any other subjects that are directly related to the operation of gaming activities.
(4) Except for any assessments that may be agreed to under paragraph (3)(C)(iii) of this subsection, nothing in this section shall be interpreted as
conferring upon a State or any of its political subdivisions authority to impose any tax, fee, charge, or other assessment upon an Indian tribe or upon any other person or entity authorized by an Indian tribe to engage in a class III activity. No State may refuse to enter into the negotiations described in paragraph (3)(A) based upon the lack of authority in such State, or its political subdivisions, to impose such a tax, fee, charge, or other assessment.
(5) Nothing in this subsection shall impair the right of an Indian tribe to regulate class III gaming on its Indian lands concurrently with the State, except to the extent that such regulation is inconsistent with, or less stringent than, the State laws and regulations made applicable by any Tribal-State compact entered into by the Indian tribe under paragraph (3) that is in effect.
(6) The provisions of section 1175 of title 15 shall not apply to any gaming conducted under a Tribal-State compact that—
(A) is entered into under paragraph (3) by a State in which gambling devices are legal, and
(B) is in effect.
(7)(A) The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction over—
(i) any cause of action initiated by an Indian tribe arising from the failure of a State to enter into negotiations with the Indian tribe for the purpose of entering into a Tribal-State compact under paragraph (3) or to conduct such negotiations in good faith,
(ii) any cause of action initiated by a State or Indian tribe to enjoin a class III gaming activity located on Indian lands and conducted in violation of any Tribal-State compact entered into under paragraph (3) that is in effect, and
(iii) any cause of action initiated by the Secretary to enforce the procedures prescribed under subparagraph (B)(vii).
(B)(i) An Indian tribe may initiate a cause of action described in subparagraph (A)(i) only after the close of the 180-day period beginning on the date on which the Indian tribe requested the State to enter into negotiations under paragraph (3)(A).
(ii) In any action described in subparagraph (A)(i), upon the introduction of evidence by an Indian tribe that—
(I) a Tribal-State compact has not been entered into under paragraph (3), and
(II) the State did not respond to the request of the Indian tribe to negotiate such a compact or did not respond to such request in good faith,
the burden of proof shall be upon the State to prove that the State has negotiated with the Indian tribe in good faith to conclude a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of gaming activities.
(iii) If, in any action described in subparagraph (A)(i), the court finds that the State has failed to negotiate in good faith with the Indian tribe to conclude a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of gaming activities, the court shall order the State and the Indian Tribeii to conclude such a compact within a 60-day period. In determining in such an action whether a State has negotiated in good faith, the court—
(I) may take into account the public interest, public safety, criminality, financial integrity, and adverse economic impacts on existing gaming activities, and
(II) shall consider any demand by the State for direct taxation of the Indian tribe or of any Indian lands as evidence that the State has not negotiated in good faith.
(iv) If a State and an Indian tribe fail to conclude a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of gaming activities on the Indian lands subject to the jurisdiction of such Indian tribe within the 60-day period provided in the order of a court issued under clause (iii), the Indian tribe and the State shall each submit to a mediator appointed by the court a proposed compact that represents their last best offer for a compact. The mediator shall select from the two proposed compacts the one which best comports with the terms of this chapter and any other applicable Federal law and with the findings and order of the court.
(v) The mediator appointed by the court under clause (iv) shall submit to the State and the Indian tribe the compact selected by the mediator under clause (iv).
(vi) If a State consents to a proposed compact during the 60-day period beginning on the date on which the proposed compact is submitted by the mediator to the State under clause (v), the proposed compact shall be treated as a Tribal-State compact entered into under paragraph (3).
(vii) If the State does not consent during the 60-day period described in clause (vi) to a proposed compact submitted by a mediator under clause (v), the mediator shall notify the Secretary and the Secretary shall prescribe, in consultation with the Indian tribe, procedures—
(I) which are consistent with the proposed compact selected by the mediator under clause (iv), the provisions of this chapter, and the relevant provisions of the laws of the State, and
(II) under which class III gaming may be conducted on the Indian lands over which the Indian tribe has jurisdiction.
(8)(A) The Secretary is authorized to approve any Tribal-State compact entered into between an Indian tribe and a State governing gaming on Indian lands of such Indian tribe.
(B) The Secretary may disapprove a compact described in subparagraph (A) only if such compact violates—
(i) any provision of this chapter,
(ii) any other provision of Federal law that does not relate to jurisdiction over gaming on Indian lands, or
(iii) the trust obligations of the United States to Indians.
(C) If the Secretary does not approve or disapprove a compact described in subparagraph (A) before the date that is 45 days after the date on which the compact is submitted to the Secretary for approval, the compact shall be considered to have been approved by the Secretary, but only to the extent the compact is consistent with the provisions of this chapter.
(D) The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register notice of any Tribal-State compact that is approved, or considered to have been approved, under this paragraph.
(9) An Indian tribe may enter into a management contract for the operation of a class III gaming activity if such contract has been submitted to, and approved by, the Chairman. The Chairman's review and approval of such contract shall be governed by the provisions of subsections (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), and (h) of section 2711 of this title.
(e) Approval of ordinances
For purposes of this section, by not later than the date that is 90 days after the date on which any tribal gaming ordinance or resolution is submitted to the Chairman, the Chairman shall approve such ordinance or resolution if it meets the requirements of this section. Any such ordinance or resolution not acted upon at the end of that 90-day period shall be considered to have been approved by the Chairman, but only to the extent such ordinance or resolution is consistent with the provisions of this chapter.
(Pub. L. 100–497, §11, Oct. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 2472.)
i So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma. ii So in original. Probably should not be capitalized.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Case Name: Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, et
al., v. Jerry Brown, et al. No. 17-55604
I hereby certify that on January 17, 2018, I electronically filed the following documents with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system:
APPELLEES’ ANSWERING BRIEF
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on January 17, 2018, at San Diego, California.
T. Michelle Laird s/T. Michelle Laird Declarant Signature