Casino Opponents Claim Victory In Judge's Decision

WBEN 930 : Casino Opponents Claim Victory In Judge’s Decision
Casino Opponents Claim Victory In Judge’s Decision
Friday, January 12, 2007 04:54 PM – WBEN Newsroom

Buffalo, NY (WBEN) – Federal Judge William Skretny’s ruling saying the federal government must determine whether the Fulton Street site is sovereign land is a big victory to casino opponents.

Erie County Executive Joel Giambra says this is the end for what looked to be a bad deal for area interests. Giambra and others say the ruling enforces laws that make opening a downtown casino illegal. All involved say even though this is a victory, they expect further battles.

This update from NoCasinoErie.org

On our Motion for Summary Judgment, United States District Judge William M. Skretny ruled in favor of our claim that the determination of the sovereign status of the Buffalo Creek parcel by the National Indian gaming Commission was a necessary precondition for Federal approval of the Senecas’ tribal gaming ordinance. It never happened, and therefore the Judge vacated the ordinance and remanded the matter back to the NIGC.

So, as of the moment, casino gambling cannot be conducted in the Buffalo Creek parcel.

As I’m sure you realize, this does not end the matter. Right now, several things could happen. The government could appeal the Judge’s ruling. Otherwise, the NIGC will need to make a determination as to the sovereign status of the land in question. But this time, they will do so in the full light of day, under intense legal and, one hopes, media scrutiny, and at a time when the national mood has turned against off-reservation casinos.

We hope the NIGC will affirm the contention of the plaintiffs that the land in question does not meet the tests spelled out in the Salamanca Settlement Act of 1990 for being designated as sovereign Indian land, and that in any case, it does not meet the test spelled out in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 for authorization to conduct casino gambling, because it was acquired after 1988 and was not obtained as part of a settlement of a land dispute. Note that the Salamanca Settlement Act addressed a lease dispute; the ownership of the land was never a matter of dispute.

We do not know how the NIGC will rule, although the law would certainly seem to be on our side. If the ruling does go against us, we will be back in Federal Court to challenge it on the same grounds put forward in our Motion for Summary Judgment. If the ruling is favorable, I can well imagine that the seneca Nation may attempt to challenge it, so we could be back in court regardless.

Judge Skretny’s order addressed some other issues. He allowed the Seneca Nation to file an amicus brief, but denied its claim to be a
necessary party to the dispute, ruling that the Nation’s interests are represented by the Federal Government.

Judges generally like to decide cases on the narrowest grounds possible, and in keeping with this tradition Judge skretny dismissed some of our other claims on the grounds that they were premature. But of course, if the NIGC ruling is unfavorable, these issues will no longer be premature, and we will no doubt be pursuing those same claims once again.

Now, there is undoubtedly a political dimension to the NIGC decision-making process. In the course of the next few days, I will
attempt to learn whether letters or other communications to the NIGC would be appropriate and helpful, and if so, where they should be sent. Please stay tuned.

But I’m getting ahead of where we are right now, and in terms of the legal interpretation of the decision, way over my head. If you’d like to know more, you can read the decision at
http://nocasinoerie.org/other/SummaryJudgment/DecisionAndOrder20070112.pdf