The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas opened its Naskila Gaming Center on the reservation about a year ago, and has been fighting the Texas Attorney General ever since.
Carlos Bullock, a spokesman for the tribe, told the Houston Chronicle: “The tribe relies on Naskila revenue to subsidize education, senior citizen and health care programs. We also run a tribal government and have to provide maintenance, roads, water and sewer systems, and police and fire departments. The list goes on and on.”
The casino produces more than $10 million a year in economic activity, says the tribe and employs 210 employees, half of them tribal members. All of them get full benefits, including medical.
Texas argues that the casino is being operated in violation of an injunction filed 15 years ago that prevents the tribe from conducting gaming on the reservation in violate of Texas law. That injunction forced the tribe to close its first casino, in 2002.
The tribe argues that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act trumps Texas law. However, the tribe is not a federally-recognized tribe, and so may not follow under IGRA. Moreover, the tribe’s leaders signed an agreement with the state promising not to enter gaming unless the state legalizes it.
Bullock concedes the tribe signed the resolution, but says it did so because it hoped to get the legislature’s help to achieve recognition. “At the time we were more focused on protecting our land and dealing with health care issues,” he told the Chronicle.
Other Texas tribes that have achieved recognition have opened casinos, including the Kickapoo gaming center, which has operated for two decades. In 2015 the National Indian Gaming Commission gave the tribe an opinion that it could offer Class II gaming because Texas allows bingo.
The tribe’s attorney, Fred Petti, believes the case could take years to resolve. In the meantime, the tribe will keep the casino open, he said.
Bullock added, “It’s very important that we are allowed to keep the gaming center open. We are trying to do everything correctly and by the letter of the law because we can’t afford to lose the jobs like we did in 2002.”
