|
Gaming
A major part of our practice involves Indian gaming, and covers all aspects of Indian gaming, including representation of tribal clients in gaming compact negotiations with states, drafting and reviewing proposed agreements related to the financing, development and construction of gaming and related facilities. Our work also includes advice on legal questions concerning the requirements of the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and gaming regulations, analysis of tax issues, jurisdictional questions, contract disputes, employment matters, and the like. We also represent tribes in Congress on gaming issues. Our work in Indian gaming is limited in only one respect: we work exclusively for Indian tribes and tribal entities.
Specifically, we have assisted tribal governments in preparing and developing strategies for gaming compact negotiations and implementing those strategies. We have represented several tribes in successfully negotiating class III gaming compacts and amendments with states, including tribes in North and South Dakota, Washington and Montana.
Our firm has considerable experience in assisting tribes in considering and evaluating proposals for the development and construction of a gaming facility, terms for financing, and the purchase of equipment and supplies. We have evaluated numerous proposed management agreements for our tribal clients, and negotiated several such agreements on behalf of our clients. We also have addressed our clients' needs before the National Indian Gaming Commission, with respect to a range of matters including potential enforcement actions, approval of management agreements, and tribal rights to engage in gaming activities on lands acquired under section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
With respect to tribal gaming regulation, the firm has many years of experience in working with tribal regulatory agencies and assisting them in carrying out their duty to maintain the honesty and integrity of tribal casinos. We have extensive experience in the development of tribal laws and institutions necessary to monitor and regulate gaming. We have drafted tribal gaming ordinances, gaming regulations, and minimum internal control standards and amendments. We have provided legal advice on procedures for licensing and background investigations of tribal gaming employees and vendors. We have developed a manual and standardized forms for a tribal gaming commission to use in the licensing process and in connection with conducting hearings on licenses and other regulatory issues.
We are also active with respect to federal regulatory developments that affect tribal gaming, particularly those of the National Indian Gaming Commission. We advise tribes and tribal gaming commissions in their efforts to ensure that the NIGC regulations are consistent with tribal interests. For example, we have assisted our clients in commenting on the NIGC's regulations establishing a procedure for issuing certificates of self regulation, as well as minimum internal control standards. Recently, we submitted an extensive and successful argument to the Commission that it should not disclose the gaming revenues of individual tribes under the Freedom of Information Act.
Finally, our firm has played an active role in litigation to defend and protect tribal rights to engage in gaming activities. We successfully challenged gaming management agreements that were made in violation of federal law, e.g. Wis. Winnebago Bus. Comm. v. Koberstein, 762 F.2d 613 (7th Cir. 1985), and have represented tribes in litigation involving the permissible scope of gaming., e.g. State of Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, et al., No. C95-1805-FVS (W.D. Wash), as well as litigation regarding whether specific games are class II or class III. Most recently we have been representing tribes in litigation before the Wisconsin and Michigan courts where the state's authority to enter into gaming compacts with the tribes has been challenged. In the litigation affecting tribes in Michigan, the Michigan Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the validity of tribal-state gaming compacts. Taxpayers of Mich. Against Casinos v. Michigan, 471 Mich. 306, 685 N.W.2d 221 (2004), cert denied.125 S.Ct. 1298 (2005). Similarly, on July 14, 2006 the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a series of challenges that had been made to the validity of the Wisconsin tribes' gaming compacts with the State, Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Doyle, No. 03-421 (Wisc. July 14, 2006).
|
