The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected two petitions involving Indian gaming. That means that the rulings in the lower courts will stand.
In the first case the high court chose not to review Oklahoma v. Hobia, a case that arose when the Kialegee Tribal Town sought to build a casino in Indian owned land—not reservation land— in Broken Arrow near Tulsa.
The state of Oklahoma sued individual tribal leaders, alleging that they had violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Last year the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the leaders were protected by sovereign immunity—as the tribe is. The Supreme Court has let that ruling prevail.
The decision is somewhat moot from the tribe’s standpoint since it is no longer pursuing the casino in that location. It does, however, reaffirm an earlier Supreme Court decision in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, in which the court told the state of Michigan that it could not sue tribes or leaders of tribes for activities that are outside of the scope of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
In the second case the Supreme Court declined to review Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, a case where the state sought to prevent the tribe from offering electronic gaming at a casino in Madison.
Earlier this year the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the machines were Class II, and so beyond state control.
