The State of Alaska (the “State” or “Alaska”) is asking a D.C. federal judge to bar an Alaska Native tribe from operating a gaming hall in Anchorage while the State challenges federal authorization for the facility. The State...more
The case of Lexington Insurance Company v. Suquamish Tribe has emerged as a pivotal legal battle concerning the extent of tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers. This case, which has reached the Supreme Court, challenges the...more
In Lexington Insurance Co. v. Mueller, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision regarding the jurisdiction of the Cabazon Reservation Court in a dispute between Lexington Insurance Company and...more
In the complex landscape of Indigenous rights and jurisdiction, the question of tribal authority over Alaska Native allotments has long been a subject of legal debate. The recent Opinion known as Partial Withdrawal of...more
In a recent decision, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in the case of Sipp v. Buffalo Thunder Inc. that state courts do not have the authority to adjudicate tort claims filed by casino visitors. The unanimous decision...more
1/23/2024
/ Appeals ,
Bodily Injury ,
Casinos ,
Damages ,
Immunity ,
Indian Gaming ,
Indian Gaming Regulation Act ,
Jurisdiction ,
State Law Tort Claims ,
Termination Clauses ,
Tribal Lands ,
Tribal-State Gaming Compacts