No. 20-846

Club One Casino, Inc., dba Club One Casino, et al. v. Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-12-23
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: administrative-procedure-act federal-enclave federal-trust-acquisition indian-commerce-clause indian-reorganization-act land-transfer state-sovereignty tenth-amendment tribal-jurisdiction
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-06-17 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Indian Reorganization Act unilaterally transfer state jurisdiction to the federal government and tribes?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A Nevada gambling corporation donated a parcel of private California land to the United States to hold in trust for an Indian tribe for an off-reservation gambling casino to be run by the tribe and the private gambling corporation. Over four million California voters, a 60 percent majority, rejected a casino on this parcel, a parcel which had never been Indian owned or governed. The State of California never consented to relinquishing its jurisdiction over the parcel. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit held that tribal jurisdiction over the land, required by The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2710, was automatically created: “[A]s a matter of law, the federal government confers tribal jurisdiction over lands it acquires in trust for the benefit of tribes” (including by private donation) even absent State jurisdictional consent or cession. The questions presented by this petition relate to fundamental questions of State sovereignty over State lands: 1. Does the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 5108, by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior “in his discretion” to acquire lands “for the purpose of providing land for Indians,” silently operate, by virtue of a simple transfer of title, to divest States of their inherent and exclusive jurisdiction over such acquired lands and transfer it, without State cession or consent, to a tribe? ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued 2. Ifthe Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 5108, is read to unilaterally transfer State jurisdiction to the federal government and tribes, did Congress have the power to do so under the Indian Commerce clause, art. I, § 8 of the Constitution, notwithstanding other constitutional provisions limiting federal usurpation of State lands, e.g., art. IV, § 3 (no involuntary reduction or combination of a State’s territory), art. I, § 8, cl. 17 (requiring State consent to federal enclaves), and the Tenth Amendment (reserving to the States powers not expressly delegated to Congress)?

Docket Entries

2021-06-21
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.
2021-05-27
Reply of petitioners Club One Casino, Inc., dba Club One Casino, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2021-05-12
Brief of respondents Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior, et al. in opposition filed.
2021-04-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 12, 2021.
2021-04-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 12, 2021 to May 12, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-03-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 12, 2021.
2021-03-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 11, 2021 to April 12, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-02-09
Response Requested. (Due March 11, 2021)
2021-01-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2021-01-22
Waiver of right of respondent David Bernhardt, Secretary of the Interior, et al. to respond filed.
2020-12-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 22, 2021)

Attorneys

Club One Casino, Inc., dba Club One Casino, et al.
Robert Axel OlsonGreines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP, Petitioner
Robert Axel OlsonGreines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP, Petitioner
Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent