Abstract
Massachusetts Receives Mashpee Update
Amid the growing interest in the unissued southeast region casino license, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission is considering reopening the bidding process after receiving an update from the Mashpee Wampanoag Indians on their long-stalled proposed casino in Taunton.
The Mashpee say they still plan to build the casino and it isn't a question of if, but when.
“Timing is in the hands of the litigation and legislation working their ways through the courts and Congress, but the Taunton development remains real and ready,” Tribal Council Chair Cedric Cromwell said.
The commission's legal team advised that the tribal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior is still pending and a resolution won't come for at least six to nine months. The tribe's appeal of a lawsuit filed by Taunton residents to stop the tribe from building the $1 billion First Light casino is also still pending, as is federal legislation that could reaffirm land in trust for the project.
The Mashpee plans were derailed when the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) reversed its decision to take land in trust for the casino after a court case was won by Taunton residents and rival casino operator Rush Street. The tribe's plans have been caught in the appeals process since, and federal legislation to affirm the land in trust has stalled in the U.S. Senate.
The commission's inquest comes as Massachusetts legislators have begun hearings on legislation that could pave the way for a slots casino in Wareham.
Taunton-based Sen. Marc Pacheco implored gaming regulators to not make any decision on the casino license if there's even a possibility that the Mashpee could build a casino in Taunton.
Pacheco criticized the bill, H. 4070, saying it favors one self-serving developer, South Coast Today reported.
The bill goes against the collective vision of the state's 2011 law for three destination casinos, Pacheco said. He doesn't want a developer coming into Wareham and asking for special treatment for a scaled-down project when a full-scale casino in the southeast part of the state has already been authorized.
Notos Group has proposed a $300 million racetrack and slots parlor in Wareham. It says the market can't support a full-fledged casino.
H. 4070 would let the Massachusetts Gaming Commission decide whether to issue a slots license or the full-scale casino license.
The commission rejected Rush Street's 2016 bid for a casino in Brockton due to oversaturation concerns with the Mashpee's Taunton plans.
Even with the Mashpee casino project stalled indefinitely, the commission said it won't reconsider Rush Street's original bid out of concerns of fairness in case other companies wanted to bid for the license should the process reopen. The commission is considering a market study to determine the best path forward.
Connecticut, Tribes, DOI Seek MGM Suit Dismissal
Connecticut, the Mohegan and Mashantucket Pequot Indians, and the U.S. Department of the Interior are seeking dismissal of MGM Resorts' lawsuit that aims to block the tribes' planned East Windsor casino.
The state and tribes filed a motion in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asking for dismissal of MGM's suit against the U.S. Department of the Interior because they are not allowed to join the suit together due to their sovereign immunity. But they claim they are necessary parties to the suit because the outcome could harm them.
MGM Resorts says the U.S. Interior Department's decision to approve compact amendments that allow the two tribes to proceed with plans for an off-reservation casino is “novel and unprecedented” and “could have ramifications in more than two dozen states.”
In a filing opposing the dismissal requests, MGM said the department's approval decisions are “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act.”
MGM's suit seeks to overturn the department's approval the of compact amendments that were necessary to allow the tribes jointly pursue their planned $300 million casino in East Windsor, Connecticut, 15 miles from MGM's $1 billion casino in Springfield, Massachusetts.
The state and tribes say MGM is challenging the department's approval of contracts between the state and each tribe individually, and that the procedural history of the case means that they cannot rely on the federal government to protect their interests in the case.
The department has also filed a separate motion for dismissal, saying the compact amendments' approvals were consistent with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
MGM claims the department unlawfully approved the amendments to allow the tribes to operate a commercial casino, circumventing the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's land-in-trust process and allowing the tribes to leverage their tribal gaming duopoly in the state to obtain a monopoly on commercial gaming.
Texas Tribes Still Fighting for Casinos
In Texas, the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe and the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, or Tigua Pueblo, are hoping Congress will support legislation to allow them to operate Class II gaming on their reservations.
H.R. 759 has passed the U.S. House of Representatives and awaits action in the U.S. Senate, but a Texas congressman has stalled the process.
“Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, and Attorney General Ken Paxton have concerns with this legislation because current federal law prohibits gambling on tribal lands unless authorized by the State of Texas,” Sen. John Cornyn told the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee in a letter.
“In light of these legal and policy disagreements between the Texas state government and these tribes, I request any committee hearings concerning this legislation be postponed until these parties have reached a resolution or agreement,” he said.
Alabama-Coushatta Tribal Council members, including Chairwoman Cecilia Flores, met with staff members of U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn to try to gain support and get a hearing set, the Tyler County Booster reported.
Tribal representatives are also trying to spur local East Texas support.
“Ultimately representatives also need to hear from East Texas voters about the importance of the casino,” Alabama-Coushatta general manager Cheryl Downing said.
H.R. 759, which passed the U.S. House in July, would clarify that a 1987 land agreement that requires the tribes to abide by Texas laws does not prevent the tribes from operating Class II gaming.
It would allow the Alabama-Coushatta to continue operating the Naskila casino near Houston, and the Tigua to operate gaming at Speaking Rock casino in El Paso.
The tribes are two of the three federally recognized tribes in Texas.
The Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas operates Class II gaming at the Lucky Eagle Casino in Eagle Pass, Texas. The tribe is not bound by the same land agreement as the Alabama-Coushatta and Tigua tribes.
Alaska Tribe Sues Feds for Gaming
The U.S. Interior Department was given until December 17 to respond to a lawsuit that seeks Class II gaming rights for the Native Village of Eklutna, 20 miles north of Anchorage, Alaska.
The department determined in 2018 that the native allotment doesn't qualify as Indian lands under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and is ineligible for gaming.
The Eklutna are federally recognized, but the department ruled the tribe does not have governmental authority over the land.
Alaska Natives own their lands through native corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, unlike the Indian reservations in the lower 48 states. The only Indian reservation in Alaska is the Metlakatla in the southern islands, which has a Class II casino.
The suit seeks the right to operate gaming on the Eklutna's native allotment. If successful, it could potentially set precedent for up to 10,000 native allotments in the state, though most are quite remote compared to the Eklutna's proximity to Anchorage.