Massachusetts Tribe Opposes Supreme Court Review

A tribe based on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts is opposing a review of a challenge to its small Class II casino that it proposes to build on the island by the United States Supreme Court. The challenge has been brought against the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) by the town of Aquinnah and the state, among others. Tribal Chairwoman Cheryl Andrews-Maltais (l.) has asked for cooperation, rather than conflict.

The Massachusetts-based Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), which makes its home on Martha’s Vineyard, has formally opposed the United States Supreme Court reviewing the tribe’s plans for a Class II bingo style casino on the island.

Their plans have been opposed in federal court by the state of Massachusetts, the town of Aquinnah and the Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association, who are appealing the most recent ruling in favor of the tribe. They filed a petition for certiorari in August.

The Supreme Court declines to review more than 99 percent of cases appeal to it.

Tribal Chairwoman Cheryl Andrews-Maltais, anticipating that result, called on “the commonwealth and the town to take the tribe up on its longstanding offers to coordinate efforts between our governments so that the entire community will benefit from the tribe’s economic development activities.”

The tribe in 1987, as part of a federal land settlement that was enshrined by an Act of Congress, agreed to submit to local land use restrictions, and to not build a casino.

In the agreement, the tribe agreed to “be subject to the civil and criminal laws, ordinances, and jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the town of Gay Head, Massachusetts (including those laws and regulations which prohibit or regulate the conduct of bingo or any other game of chance).”

However, the tribe’s attorneys have argued that its agreement was superseded by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1989.

The town and state argue that the tribe knew that it was giving up its rights to gaming when it entered into the agreement.

The tribe’s brief states that “If any doubt remains, it should be resolved not by looking to legislative history, but on the ground that ‘statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.”

A lower court agreed with state and the town, but 1st Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the tribe. The Supreme Court is the last resort for the two sides.