Opinion

Opinion: Decision opens tribes to litigation over gaming disputes

Monday, May 21, 2012

"This brings us to the major point of this writing, the issue of sovereign immunity of federally-recognized Indian tribes from legal actions bought by non-Indians (see Santa Clara Pueblo v. Matinenz 436 US, 49,58 (1978)). This immunity stems from the concept that federally-recognized tribes are considered sovereign entities and thus are immune from legal actions. In normal legal situations I could possibly bring a civil suit against Mr. McKinney over his comments in regard to both my person and business. In a similar manner, Chairman Cedric Cromwell or the Mashpee tribe cannot be held legally responsible for promises or comments made to the Town of Taunton without his express waver of this shield of sovereign immunity. Patrons get injured on tribal casino property, disputes arise over gambling winnings, pay-day con artists provide ‘loans’ at exorbitant interest rates on tribal lands. Victims cannot resort to the courts for justice.

Recently, a ruling by Federal District Judge Gregory K. Frizzell in Oklahoma (Oklahoma v. Hobia 12-CV-0540GKF-TLW) ruled that the 1988 Indian Gaming regulatory Act removed a tribes sovereign immunity if it engaged in Class III gaming. At present, until lands are taken into federal trust (which is questionable) for the Mashpee, and Judge Frizzel’s decision is not overturned by a federal appellant court, the Mashpee are covered by this concept of sovereign immunity. In any agreements or contracts the town of Taunton may conclude with the Mashpee, it must, in the public interest, contain an express wavier of sovereign immunity."

Get the Story:
James P. Lynch: Sovereign immunity and the Mashpee: A cautionary note (The Taunton Daily Gazette 5/21)

Another Opinion:
Casino debate gets heated online (The Taunton Daily Gazette 5/19)

Also Today:
Taunton casino agreement includes bonding mechanism (The Taunton Daily Gazette 5/19)