TULALIP — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the Tulalip Tribes are not entitled to additional video-gambling terminals under terms of an agreement between the state and the Spokane Tribe of Indians.
The case hinged on the Indian Gaming Compact between the Tulalips and the state of Washington, which included a “most favored tribe” clause. That section states that if another tribe were to obtain video-gambling terminal licenses on better terms, the Tulalip Tribes would be entitled to the same terms.
The Indian Gaming Compact caps the number of terminal licenses a tribe can have, but a tribe can acquire more through an agreement to lease unused terminal licenses from other tribes. Most tribes in the state are signatories to a license-exchange agreement that allows this.
The Spokane Tribe faced difficulty obtaining unused licenses because it is not part of the exchange agreement.
In 2008, the Spokanes amended their own compact with the state to allow them to obtain terminal licenses by paying into an intertribal fund. But if they were to use this mechanism, their cap would automatically be reduced to 3,000 terminals, from 4,700, and cancel any existing terminal leases.
The Tulalips proposed their own compact amendment to take advantage of the same mechanism. When the state rejected the amendment, the tribes sued.
The Tulalip Tribes argued that the “most favored tribe” clause required the state to accept its proposed amendment to the gaming compact. The state said that the proposed amendment did not contain the same level of conditions and limitations as the Spokane Tribe’s amendment.
A U.S. District Court judge ruled Dec. 11, 2014, in favor of the state, and on April 17 a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals upheld that decision.
David Giampetroni, an attorney from Kanji Katzen PLLC, representing the Tulalips, said the tribes were evaluating their options.
Chris Winters: 425-374-4165; cwinters@heraldnet.com. Twitter: @Chris_At_Herald.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
