Gila River Indian Cmty. v. Tohono O'odham Nation, No. 13-16517 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThe Nation and the State executed a gaming compact in 2002 pursuant to the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. 2701-2721. After the Compact was approved by the Secretary of the Interior and became effective in 2003, the Nation purchased an unincorporated parcel of land within the outer boundaries of Glendale, Arizona, pursuant to the federal Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act (LRA). Plaintiffs filed suit against the Nation seeking to enjoin the Nation's plan to conduct Class III gaming on Parcel 2. The district court granted summary judgment to the Nation. The court concluded that, under the ordinary meaning of the words used in the statutory text, the Nation plainly had “land claims” for damage to its reservation lands; were the court to find the term “land claim” to be ambiguous, and proceeded under Chevron to apply the DOI’s definition of the term, then the court would find that the Nation also had a claim concerning the impairment of title or other real property interest or loss of possession of its reservation land; and the district court did not err in determining that the LRA was a “settlement” of the Nation’s land claims. The court also concluded that the district court properly rejected plaintiffs' claims of judicial estoppel and waiver; the duly-executed Compact negotiated at length by sophisticated parties expressly authorizes the Nation to conduct gaming on its “Indian Lands,” subject to the requirements of section 2719 of IGRA; because Parcel 2 complies with the requirements of section 2719, and the Compact expressly allows the Nation to conduct Class III gaming there, the district court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of the Nation on plaintiffs’ breach of Compact claim; the Nation's choice to conduct Class III gaming in accordance with the express terms of the Compact does not deviate from the agreed common purpose of the Compact, and therefore does not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and the district court correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ non-Compact claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Affirming the district court’s judgment, the panel held that the Tohono O’odham Nation’s plan to build a casino and conduct Class III gaming on a certain parcel of land did not violate a gaming compact between the Nation and the State of Arizona. The Compact expressly authorizes Class III gaming (table card games and slot machines) on the “Indian Lands” of the Nation. The Compact defines “Indian Lands” as lands defined in 25 U.S.C. § 2703(4)(A) and (B) and subject to the provisions of 25 U.S.C. § 2719. Section 2719 provides that GILA RIVER INDIAN CMTY. V. TOHONO O’ODHAM NATION 4 although Class III gaming is generally barred on land taken into trust after the effective date of the Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), that bar does not apply to land taken into trust as part of a settlement of a land claim. After the Compact was approved, the Nation purchased land in Glendale, Arizona, with settlement funds it had acquired under the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act (“LRA”) after reservation lands were destroyed in flooding. The United States took a portion of the Glendale-area land, known as “Parcel 2,” into trust for the Nation pursuant to the LRA. Affirming the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that the land acquired and taken into trust pursuant to the LRA was land taken into trust as part of a settlement of a land claim under IGRA § 2719, and thus IGRA did not bar the Nation from gaming on Parcel 2. The panel also affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Nation on breach of Compact claims, because the Compact specifically authorizes Class III gaming on Indian lands that qualify for gaming under IGRA § 2719. In addition, the panel affirmed the district court’s ruling that tribal sovereign immunity barred non-Compact-based claims for promissory estoppel, fraud in the inducement, and material misrepresentation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.