Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head
2017 WL 1315642, 853 F.3d 618, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6148 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) impliedly repeals a prior, tribe-specific federal settlement act to the extent the acts conflict on the regulation of gaming, unless the prior act contains an explicit savings clause preventing the application of future federal laws.
Facts:
- The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) has resided on Martha's Vineyard since before European colonization.
- In 1974, the Tribe filed a federal lawsuit against the Town of Gay Head (now Aquinnah) asserting title to certain lands.
- In 1983, the Tribe, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the Town signed a Settlement Agreement conveying approximately 485 acres (the 'Settlement Lands') to the Tribe in exchange for the Tribe relinquishing its other land claims.
- In August 1987, Congress enacted the Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head, Inc., Indian Claims Settlement Act (the 'Federal Act') to implement the agreement. The Act subjected the Settlement Lands to the laws of Massachusetts, specifically including laws that 'prohibit or regulate the conduct of bingo or any other game of chance.'
- In October 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) to establish a comprehensive federal framework for gaming on Indian lands.
- In 2011, after Massachusetts expanded legal gaming, the Tribe submitted a gaming ordinance to the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) for approval under IGRA.
- The NIGC approved the Tribe's ordinance, and the Tribe subsequently announced its intention to establish a Class II gaming facility on its Settlement Lands pursuant to IGRA, without a state license.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against the Wampanoag Tribe in state court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Tribe could not conduct gaming on its lands without complying with state law.
- The Tribe removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the other appellees.
- The district court ruled that IGRA did not apply to the Settlement Lands because the Tribe failed to exercise sufficient governmental power and, alternatively, that IGRA did not impliedly repeal the earlier Federal Act.
- The district court entered a final judgment and enjoined the Tribe from operating a gaming facility without state and local approval.
- The Wampanoag Tribe, as appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), a comprehensive federal statute governing tribal gaming, impliedly repeal the Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head, Inc., Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1987, which subjects the Tribe's settlement lands to Massachusetts's civil and criminal laws, including those regulating gaming?
Opinions:
Majority - Torruella, Circuit Judge
Yes. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) impliedly repeals the conflicting gaming provisions of the Federal Act because the two statutes are irreconcilably repugnant regarding the regulation of gaming on the Tribe's lands. First, IGRA applies to the Settlement Lands because the Tribe satisfies the statute's two-part test: it retains non-exclusive jurisdiction over its lands and exercises sufficient 'governmental power.' The court found that the Tribe's establishment of a housing authority, health clinic, conservation programs, and tribal court, among other functions, constituted 'concrete manifestations' of its authority, rejecting the notion that a fully developed government is a prerequisite for IGRA's application. Second, IGRA repeals the Federal Act's grant of gaming jurisdiction to the state. Unlike the settlement act in Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Maine, the Federal Act contains no 'savings clause' to prevent future federal laws from applying. The parenthetical in the Federal Act mentioning 'bingo or any other game of chance' is merely a clarification of the state law applicable at the time of enactment, not a shield against subsequent, comprehensive federal legislation like IGRA. As the later and more specific statute on the subject of Indian gaming, IGRA prevails.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that IGRA's comprehensive federal regulatory scheme for Indian gaming generally supersedes prior, tribe-specific federal settlement acts that cede jurisdiction to states. The court clarifies the distinction between a mere parenthetical reference to state law and a true 'savings clause' that explicitly immunizes a statute from future legislation, setting a high bar for settlement acts to escape IGRA's reach. The ruling provides a clear analytical framework for other tribes whose settlement acts lack such explicit savings clauses, strengthening their ability to pursue gaming under federal law despite historical agreements subjecting them to state jurisdiction. It solidifies IGRA as the dominant legal authority on Indian gaming, overriding conflicting provisions in older, less comprehensive statutes.
