SEARCH NEWS:

 

Landmark Tribal Sovereignty Case Heard

The Inyo County district attorney and sheriff went to the Paiute Palace Casino on March 23, 2000, and used deadbolt cutters to cut the locks off a secure facility to obtain the records.

Charges against the three employees were later dropped. The Indians sued for damages, claiming the district attorney and sheriff violated the tribe's sovereign immunity.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the tribe, saying the county as well as the district attorney and sheriff were liable for damages.

"If the (U.S. Supreme) court rules against the tribes, it will be a tremendous blow to the operations of tribal governments. This is a very significant case," said John Lavell, an associate law professor at the University of New Mexico, who has written about the case for Preview, a legal publication.

Indian gambling would be affected, Lavell said, because reservation casinos are inextricably linked to tribal governments, providing much of their revenue.

But the Supreme Court is viewed by many tribes as hostile to their sovereign rights.

That perception appeared to peak two years ago in Nevada v. Hicks, a case involving the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone tribe.

In a unanimous decision, the court ruled the tribe could not require Nevada officials to appear at a civil trial conducted by the tribe on its reservation.

Lavell described the Nevada case as "shocking," because the court appeared to disregard the interests of the tribe in enforcing Indian law on the reservation.

The Nevada case also enraged Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, who has vowed to introduce legislation to overturn the decision.

"I recognize the trend in the court's decisions," Lavell said. "But in my close reading of (the Inyo County) case, I believe the court may actually draw the line here so that states cannot impose their law within reservation boundaries."

< Gaming News