restricted access Chapter 12 Indian Lands Gaming
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

49 P.511, n.5. Add the following to the end of the footnote: In 2008, more than 240 of 562 federally recognized tribes engaged in gaming. Press Release, Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, NIGC Announces 2008 Revenues (Jun. 3, 2009), available at /PressReleasesMain/PR113062009/tabid/918/Default.aspx (last visited Jul. 1, 2009). P.511, n.6. Add the following to line 3 of the footnote after the period: Tribal gaming revenue for 2008 totaled $26.7 billion, a 2.3 percent increase over the prior year. Press Release, Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, NIGC Announces 2008 Revenues (Jun. 3, 2009), available at ReadingRoom/PressReleases/PressReleasesMain/PR113062009/tabid/918/ Default.aspx (last visited Jul. 1, 2009). Add the following to line 7 of the footnote after “See”: Alan P. Meister, Kathryn R.L. Rand & Steven Andrew Light, Indian Gaming and Beyond: Tribal Economic Development and Diversification, 54 S.D. L. Rev. 375, 380–96 (2009) (discussing the growth of Indian gaming since IGRA’s enactment, the related economic and fiscal impacts and current economic trends, and recommending tribal economic diversification in the face of an uncertain future for Indian gaming); P.511, n.7. Add the following to line 1 of the footnote after “See generally”: Guadalupe Gutierrez, Note, Jurisdictional Ambiguities Among Sovereigns: The Impact of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on Criminal Jurisdiction on Tribal Lands, 26 Ariz. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 229, 250–58 (2009) (reviewing economic and social effects of gaming on tribal life, and criminal incidence related to tribal gaming); Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Indian Tribal Businesses and the Off-Reservation Market, 12 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1047, 1058–64 (2008) (acknowledging that “Indian gaming creates some new wealth[,]” and arguing Chapter 12 Indian Lands Gaming 50 2009 Supplement—American Indian Law Deskbook, Fourth Edition that to “generate significant and sustainable economic development” it must expand beyond the closed circle of reservation economies and into the off-­ reservation market); Add the following to line 13 of the footnote after the semi-colon: The Harvard Project on Am. Indian Econ. Dev., Cabazon, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and the Socioeconomic Consequences of American Indian Governmental Gaming, (last visited Jul. 1, 2009) (reviewing tribal gaming’s social and economic impacts between the 1990 and 2000 censuses, and listing related case studies); P.521, n.64. Delete the text of the footnote from “but see” in line 5 to the semi-colon in line 7, and replace the deletion with the following: see also Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v. United States, 576 F. Supp. 2d 838, 848–51 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (applying Indian canon of construction to interpret provision of IGRA where it conflicted with Chevron deference, and finding Commission’s definition of the term “reservation” not entitled to deference); Add the following to the end of the footnote: In 2008, the previously cooperative relationship between the NIGC and the Department of the Interior disintegrated. The Department’s Solicitor directed the NIGC chairman to stand down from his decision that an Alabama Indian tribe has the right to conduct gaming on newly acquired land. Letter from David L. Berhnardt, Solicitor, Dep’t of the Interior, to Philip N. Hogen, Chairman, Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n (Jun. 13, 2008), reprinted in 12 Gaming L. Rev. & Econ. 430 (2008). Because the Department believed the land did not qualify for gaming and that the NIGC lacked statutory authority to issue Indian lands opinions independently, the Secretary invoked his general authority in 43 C.F.R. § 4.5 to review the chairman’s decision. Id. The Solicitor asserted that the Secretary alone has authority to decide issues concerning Indian lands and tribal jurisdiction and that resolution of such issues requires the Solicitor’s particular expertise regarding overall Indian issues and not just Indian gaming concerns. Id. at 433–34. In an effort toward clarity, the Department corrected the final rule regarding gaming on newly acquired land to specify that “[r]egardless of where the tribe sends its request for an Indian lands opinion, the Department will coordinate the completion of the request by the appropriate offices.” 73 Fed. Reg. 35,579 (Jun. 24, 2008). The NIGC’s Acting General Counsel responded that the Secretary’s authority under IGRA is limited; that Congress specifically delegated NIGC the authority to make Indian lands determinations; that the NIGC is an independent agency beyond the...