The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals July 28 upheld a ruling that state of California cannot require environmental concessions from tribes when negotiating tribal state gaming compacts.
California had sought wide-ranging environmental regulations, and changes to tort and family law that were unrelated to gaming when it sought to renew gaming compacts with five tribes.
In one instance, the state sought tribes to enact large portions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that would have given “state and local government agencies an apparent veto over tribal projects,” the opinion stated.
The decision applies to the Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Blue Lake Rancheria, Hopland Band of Pomo Indians and Robinson Rancheria.
Writing for the majority of the panel, Judge Daniel Bress said, “Through its negotiating demands, California effectively sought to use the casino contracting process as leverage to impose its general policy objectives on the tribes, which a state may not do.”
The state tried to attach conditions to the gaming compact that were unrelated to gaming, using a provision in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that allows a “catch-all” of subjects “directly related to the operation of gaming activities.” But the things the state wanted had no relation to gaming, the court ruled.
The compacts for these tribes are set to expire in December 2023. The state and these tribes have been negotiating since 2014 but the negotiations ceased in 2019. The tribes sued the state in federal court.
