Here are the materials in Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Gerlach (D. S.D.):
117 Flandreau Motion for Summary J
An excerpt:
1. The Tribe’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 115, is GRANTED to the extent that:
a. The State cannot impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services as to the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop (claim one).
2. The Tribe’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 115, is DENIED as to the following:
a. The State can impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store (claims one and three).
b. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not discriminatory (claim four)
3. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 78, is GRANTED to the extent that:
a. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not preempted by IGRA (claim one).
b. The State’s use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services at the Store is not discriminatory (claim four).
c. The collection and remittance of taxes on nonmember consumer purchases at the Store are not preempted by federal law and do not infringe on tribal sovereignty (claims two and five).
4. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 78, is DENIED as to the following:
a. The State cannot impose a use tax on nonmember purchases of goods and services as to the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop (claim one).
b. The State cannot condition renewal of the Tribe’s beverage license on the collection and remittance of a use tax on nonmember consumer purchases (claims six and eight).
5. The State does not have jurisdiction to assess a use tax on nonmember purchases at the Casino’s slots, table games, food and beverage services, hotel, RV park, live entertainment events, and gift shop. However, the State does have jurisdiction to assess a use tax on nonmember purchases at the Store (claim seven).
6. Each party requested declaratory relief. Tribal sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature. This Court has no jurisdiction due to tribal sovereign immunity to order the ‘payment to the State from the escrow funds held pursuant to the Deposit Agreement. The Tribe, however, agreed in the Deposit Agreement that those funds would be held by the escrow agent pending the outcome of this lawsuit. Accordingly, the escrow agent may now, subject to any stay granted pursuant to an appeal, pay the funds held in escrow to the Tribe and to the State in their respective shares under the guidance provided by this declaratory judgment.
Turtle Talk 