"At the end of June 2007, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D.-Los Angeles) announced that a side deal had been worked out with four of the five tribes. The tribes agreed their casinos could be audited by the state. They also promised to cooperate with state garnishment of employees' wages for back child and spousal support, and to set up safeguards to protect problem gamblers and minors. Politically, this shows how much power the casino tribes have won in California. Unions have always been the backbone of the Democratic Party, and the Democrats are firmly in control of both the Senate and Assembly. Yet, the side agreement did not even give lip service to protecting workers' rights to organize as they wished. Legally, the question arises whether these side agreements are enforceable. They are not part of the compacts. Rather, they are government to government memoranda of agreement (MOA). State legislators will vote on them along with the untouched compacts. Are these MOAs enforceable?

The answer is they can be, if they are done right. Tribes have sovereign immunity. Normally, they cannot be sued, even if they break a written contract. A state can pass whatever laws it wants. But the chances are very slim that those laws are enforceable against its tribes.

The compacts themselves have to be approved by the Secretary, so the side agreements could be sent at the same time. But, it does not look like this is going to be done, because it might greatly delay approval of the compacts.

Even if the side agreements are not enforceable, it might be no big deal. Tribes have signed memos of understanding with cities and counties, agreeing to help with building roads and maintaining safety standards. The question of whether these agreements are legally enforceable has apparently never come up, because the tribes have lived up to their commitments."

Get the Story:
I. Nelson Rose: The Fight in California Over New Compacts (Poker Player Online 7/23)