Federal Court Allows Pueblo of Santa Ana’s Challenge to N.M. Gaming Compact’s Jurisdiction Shifting Provisions to Proceed

Here are the materials in Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Nash (D. N.M.):

Memo Opinion

Party Defendants Motion to Dismiss

Judge Nash Motion to Dismiss

Response to Party Defendants

Response to Judge Nash

Party Defendants Reply

Judge Nash Reply

Here are the materials in the state supreme court decision that is the subject of this challenge.

This entry was posted in Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher, gaming, Research, sovereign immunity, Tribal Codes, tribal courts and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Federal Court Allows Pueblo of Santa Ana’s Challenge to N.M. Gaming Compact’s Jurisdiction Shifting Provisions to Proceed

  1. vance gillette says:

    Hi
    Tamaya tort case. Facts. The gaming compact allowed state jurisdiction while a tribal law said the tribe has exclusive jurisdiction on claims. The problem is the Compact terms are poorly drafted and appears to give away tribal authority. It has to be redone, come re-newal time.

    Compare, in North Dakota the gamihg compacts allow for civil jurisdiction by either the tribe or state, under federal case law. Simply, this requires a tribal forum in the first instance. Result: tort claims against an Indian casino are litigated in tribal court. The state agents realize they lack jurisdiction.

    In Tamaya, New Mexico argued they need to provide a forum for injury claims “against a tribal enterprise that arose on Indian land.” page 24, opinion. This view is inane. It assumes Indians are too dumb to handle a tort claim in a tribal court; it disregards tribal authority and case law such as Williams v. Lee. And, see 25 USC Sec. l322 (tribal consent by vote of members required before a state can exert jurisdiction over claims arising in
    Indian country). Import: the gaming compact cannot “give away”
    Pueblo jurisdiction (to the state court) because the voters did NOT agree to state court jurisdiction!.

    In short, the federal opinion is well-reasoned in ruling a federal
    question is stated on who has jurisdiction over a claim arising on the RES.. Tribal officials have to eyeball documents proposed by state agents, and not rubberstamp “state agreements” in haste.

    vance gillette attorney in North Dakota

  2. Pingback: Federal Court Rules in Favor of Pueblo of Santa Ana in Challenge to Alleged Waiver of State Court Immunity in Gaming Compact | Turtle Talk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s