Narrative Opinion Summary
The Northern Arapaho Tribe filed a lawsuit against the State of Wyoming, asserting a lack of good faith negotiations under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The district court ruled in favor of the Tribe concerning calcutta and parimutuel wagering, compelling the parties to negotiate a compact, but excluded casino-style gaming due to state public policy prohibitions. Both parties appealed the decision. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a panel decision, held Wyoming accountable for negotiating all forms of gaming, inclusive of casino-style, based on social and non-profit gaming allowances in state law. An en banc rehearing was requested by Wyoming, contesting the inclusion of casino-style gaming under IGRA negotiations, yet this contradicted Wyoming's previous acknowledgments. The en banc court ultimately vacated its order for rehearing, sustaining the panel's interpretation as the law of the case, albeit nonprecedential. Dissenting judges proposed certifying questions to the Wyoming Supreme Court, reflecting ongoing judicial deliberations on state gaming laws under federal frameworks.
Legal Issues Addressed
Certification of State Law Questionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Dissenting judges in the en banc appeal favored certifying questions of Wyoming state law to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
Reasoning: Judges Briscoe, McConnell, and Tymkovich dissented, advocating for the certification of state law questions to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
Good Faith Negotiation under Indian Gaming Regulatory Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the State of Wyoming failed to negotiate in good faith with the Northern Arapaho Tribe regarding calcutta and parimutuel wagering.
Reasoning: The district court partially granted the Tribe's motion for judgment, finding that Wyoming did not negotiate in good faith regarding calcutta and parimutuel wagering and mandated that the parties finalize a compact within sixty days.
Interpretation of State Law in Federal Gaming Disputessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Tenth Circuit Court panel interpreted Wyoming law to mandate negotiations for casino-style gaming based on the state's allowance of such gaming for social and non-profit purposes.
Reasoning: A panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals previously determined that Wyoming was obligated to negotiate a compact with the Tribe for both calcutta and parimutuel wagering and the full range of casino-style gambling, given that Wyoming allows such gaming for social and non-profit purposes under state law.
Law of the Case Doctrinesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The panel's interpretation of Wyoming law regarding social gaming remains the law of the case, despite it being nonprecedential.
Reasoning: It concluded that the panel's interpretation of Wyoming law, based on the state’s admissions about social gaming, stands as the law of the case but is nonprecedential.
Public Policy Exception to Gaming Negotiationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that negotiations for casino-style gaming and slot machine wagering were not required under IGRA due to Wyoming's public policy against such gaming.
Reasoning: However, the court ruled that casino-style gaming and slot machine wagering were against Wyoming public policy and thus not subject to negotiation.