Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a dispute between the Northern Arapaho Tribe and the State of Wyoming over the obligation to negotiate gaming compacts under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The Tribe alleged that Wyoming failed to negotiate in good faith. The district court ruled that Wyoming must negotiate compacts for Calcutta and parimutuel wagering but excluded casino-style gaming as it was contrary to state public policy. Both parties appealed, and a court panel found Wyoming required to negotiate Class III gaming, including casino-style gambling, since such activities were permitted for social purposes. Wyoming's en banc appeal argued that casino-style gaming was professional gambling and thus not negotiable under IGRA, despite prior admissions to the contrary. The en banc court upheld the panel's decision as the law of the case, though nonprecedential. Dissenting opinions suggested that questions of state law should be certified to the Wyoming Supreme Court. The outcome requires Wyoming to negotiate certain gaming types with the Tribe, affirming the panel's decision but without setting a broader legal precedent.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appeal and Scope of Class III Gaming Negotiationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A panel ruled Wyoming must negotiate Class III gaming as it permits such activities for social purposes, contradicting Wyoming's argument that it constituted professional gambling.
Reasoning: A panel of the court ruled that Wyoming was obligated to negotiate regarding Calcutta, parimutuel wagering, and casino-style Class III gambling, as Wyoming permits such gaming for social and non-profit purposes.
Dissent and Certification of State Law Questionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Dissenting judges argued for the certification of state law questions to the Wyoming Supreme Court to resolve the legal standard regarding gaming policies.
Reasoning: Judges Briscoe, McConnell, and Tymkovich dissented, advocating for the certification of state law questions to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and Good Faith Negotiationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Northern Arapaho Tribe claimed that Wyoming failed to negotiate in good faith under IGRA, obligating Wyoming to negotiate a compact for certain types of gaming.
Reasoning: The Northern Arapaho Tribe claimed that Wyoming failed to negotiate in good faith.
Law of the Case Doctrinesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The en banc court upheld the panel's ruling as the law of the case, despite Wyoming's en banc appeal and contention.
Reasoning: Upon further consideration, the en banc court determined that the panel's ruling, based on Wyoming's acknowledgments, should remain as the law of the case but is nonprecedential.
State Public Policy and Gaming Negotiationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court found that casino-style gaming was against Wyoming's state public policy, thus not subject to negotiation under IGRA.
Reasoning: The district court partially agreed, ruling Wyoming must negotiate a compact for Calcutta and parimutuel wagering while determining that casino-style gaming was against state public policy and thus not negotiable.