UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Civil Action No. 15-105 (CKK) Defendants, MENOMINEE INDIAN TRIBE OF WISCONSIN and MENOMINEE KENOSHA GAMING AUTHORITY, Defendant-Intervenors. MEMORANDUM OPINION (September 10, 2018) Plaintiff Forest County Potawatomi Community has brought this action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) against Defendants United States of America, United States Department of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs (collectively, the “Federal Defendants”), challenging the Assistant Secretary’s decision to disapprove a 2014 amendment to a gaming compact between Plaintiff and the State of Wisconsin under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et. seq, (“IGRA”). The Court has previously granted the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin (“Menominee”) and the Menominee Kenosha Gaming Authority’s (collectively, the “Defendant-Intervenors”) [22] Motion for Leave to Intervene as Defendants. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s [79] Motion for Summary Judgment, Federal Defendants’ [81] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and Defendant-Intervenors’ [82] Cross- 1 Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon consideration of the pleadings,1 the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court will DENY the Plaintiff’s motion, GRANT the Federal Defendants’ motion, and GRANT the Defendant-Intervenors’ motion. The Court finds that the Assistant Secretary’s disapproval of Plaintiff’s 2014 compact amendment was not arbitrary or capricious. Evidence in the administrative record supports the Assistant Secretary’s determination that the 2014 compact amendment was inconsistent with IGRA. Because there is evidence to support a finding that the amendment was inconsistent with IGRA, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Assistant Secretary to disapprove the amendment. I. BACKGROUND A. Statutory and Regulatory Background Congress passed IGRA in 1988 in order “to provide a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, 1 The Court’s consideration has focused on the following documents: • Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. and Memo. of Points and Authorities in Support of Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pls.’ Mot.”), ECF Nos. 79, 79-1; • Fed. Defs.’ Combined Response to Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. and Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. (“Fed. Defs.’ Res. and Cross-Mot.”), ECF Nos. 81, 81-1; • Def. Ints.’ Statement of Points and Authorities in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. and in Support of Def. Ints.’ Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. (Def. Ints.’ Opp’n and Cross-Mot.”), ECF Nos. 82, 82-1; • Pls.’ Consolidated Reply in Support of its Mot. for Summ. J. and Response in Opp’n to the Defs.’ and Def. Ints.’ Cross-Mots. for Summ. J. (“Pls.’ Reply and Opp’n”), ECF No. 86; • Fed. Defs.’ Reply in Support of Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. (“Fed. Defs.’ Reply”), ECF No. 91; and • Def. Ints.’ Reply in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. and in Support of Def. Ints.’ Cross- Mot. for Summ. J. (“Def. Ints.’ Reply”), ECF No. 92. In an exercise of its discretion, the Court finds that holding oral argument in this action ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals