Wilton Gaming Compact Published

The publishing of a gaming compact in the Federal Register is usually the final step before a tribe can legally build a casino. However, California’s Wilton Rancheria’s proposal for a casino in Elk Grove is still tied up in a federal court.

The Class III tribal state gaming compact for the Wilton Rancheria was published last week in the Federal Register, which allows it to operate slot machines, gaming tables and other accouterments of gaming in Elk Grove, California. The compact joined a total of nine California compacts filed in the Federal Register on the same day.

Tribal Chairman Raymond Hitchcock hailed the action as “another milestone on our journey to self-sufficiency.” He noted that the compact had been unanimously approved by both houses of the legislature and signed by Governor Jerry Brown.

The $400 million casino will be built on 36 acres in the unfinished Outlet Collection at Elk Grove mall. The Bureau of Indian Affairs approved putting the land into trust for the tribe on January 19, 2017, the last day of the Obama administration. The action was later approved by the Trump administration.

Because of the somewhat rushed action, opponents of the casino, led by the gaming watchdog group Stand Up for California, challenged the legality of the action in federal court, claiming that because it was signed by a lower official than is normal that it lacked legal standing.

The tribe is backed by Boyd Gaming, which loaned the money for the purchase of the land, and which is funding the defense in the legal challenge in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. The plaintiffs in Stand Up for California v. U.S. Department of Interior, et al, argue that the action violated the Federal Vacancy Reform Act of 1998, contending that the official who signed the action, an assistant secretary of Indian Affairs, lacked the authority to do so.

Extensive questioning by the judge in the case, Trevor McFadden, a recent Trump appointee considered a strict constructionist, gives some hopes to the opponents of the tribe. The judge shows apparent skepticism towards the so-called “Auer deference” in which federal agencies are given extensive leeway in interpreting ambiguous laws that bind them.