Wind Creek Wetumpka. Photo from Facebook
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that challenged the legality of the gaming operation of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians in Alabama. Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange filed suit in state court, claiming the tribe's gaming machines are illegal under state law. The tribe had the case moved to federal court, where it quickly met a "dead end" before Judge W. Keith Watkins. "At the heart of the motion to dismiss is the issue whether the State of Alabama has authority to bring this action for injunctive and declaratory relief to halt allegedly illegal gaming at the Poarch Band’s Alabama casinos," Watkins wrote in the 60-page decision. "The answer requires navigating a complicated jurisdictional and federal statutory maze down pathways implicating tribal sovereign immunity, the Ex parte Young doctrine, complete preemption, and congressional intent," Watkins concluded. "Ultimately, each pathway leads to a dead end for the state of Alabama." The state lacks authority in Indian Country, Watkins noted. And the National Indian Gaming Commission has confirmed that the tribe operates Class II machines that can be offered without state approval, he said. Watkins also rejected the state's attempt to bring up the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Carcieri v. Salazar and the more recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California. In Carcieri, the justices held that the land-into-trust process can only benefit tribes that were "under federal jurisdiction" in 1934. Since the Poarch Creeks didn't gain recognition until 1984, the state argued that the tribe's lands weren't validly placed in trust. "For purposes of this lawsuit, the fact remains, as established by the 1984, 1992, and 1995 deeds, that the United States holds title to the lands in question in trust for the benefit of the Poarch Band," Watkins wrote. Watkins wasn't convinced by the Big Lagoon Rancheria decision either. He said the state failed to raise timely objections to the tribe's trust land acquisitions. An appeal is likely, given the Carcieri and Big Lagoon angles in the case. The outcome of Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, an Indian gaming case before the Supreme Court, could affect the way Alabama pursues further arguments. Turtle Talk has posted documents from the case, Alabama v. PCI Gaming Authority. An Opinion:
Editorial: Getting squeezed by gaming vice (The Tampa Bay Tribune 4/10) Also Today:
A shake up along the Gulf Coast’s casino corridor? (AL.Com 4/10) Related Stories:
Poarch Creeks seek Class III casino just across border in Florida (4/9)
Join the Conversation
