"The small casino currently operated in downtown Buffalo by the Seneca Nation of Indians is an unlawful operation. The Senecas own the land and it benefits from and carries the special conditions regulating land that, in federal law, is “Indian country.” But it is not the narrowly defined and strictly regulated kind of Indian country on which gambling can take place. The Senecas can build whatever they like there—hotels, theaters, shops, hospitals, schools, anything at all. They can even build a gambling joint. But they cannot legally permit anyone to gamble in it.

So ruled US District Court Judge William M. Skretny, in a 122-page decision (127 pages with the front matter) rendered Tuesday afternoon in federal court in Buffalo. The decision is detailed, scholarly, at points elegantly written. Judge Skretny outlines the history and character of the treaties and laws governing Indian lands in general and Indian lands in Western New York in particular. He takes on the issues raised by the plaintiffs and argued by the defendants one by one and endorses or rejects each one.

Judge Skretny’s ruling is a response to the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed on July 12, 2007, which amended the complaint that was originally filed on January 3, 2006. Based on the original Complaint, the judge remanded the questions to the National Indian Gambling Commission, telling it to subject the Seneca Nation’s gambling request to a serious measure of scrutiny in terms of the law. The NIGC made a few linguistic changes in its authorization to set up a casino in Buffalo, but apparently ignored all the judge’s requirements about making it in terms of the law.

So this time the judge held that the NIGC ruling was “vacated” because:

The NIGC approved the SNl’s gaming ordinance based on its conclusion that the Buffalo casino site was acquired as part of the settlement of a land claim. The NIGC deferred to the Secretary’s opinion in this regard. The NIGC and the Secretary failed to: consider the text of the SNSA, review related statutes and case law, interpret the meaning of the statutory language at issue, or offer reasoned explanations for their conclusions. For these reasons, the NIGC Chairman’s conclusion, which relies on the Secretary’s opinion, is arbitrary and capricious. Moreover, the Buffalo casino site was not acquired as part of the settlement of a land claim. Because the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act did not apply to the SNl’s land leases, there was no claim for the SNSA to settle. The NIGC’s determination to the contrary is not in accordance with the law. The Court vacates the NIGC’s approval of the Class III Gaming Ordinance for the Buffalo casino site as arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law."

Get the Story:
The Casino Craps Out (Artvoice 7/10)