Tulalip Tribes of Washington v. State of Washington, No. 13-35464 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseIn 1991, the Tulalip Tribes of Washington and the State of Washington signed a tribal-state gaming compact (the Tulalip Compact), which has since been amended numerous times. The Spokane Tribe did not participate in the collective negotiation process that led to the Tulalip Compact. In 2007, a compact between the Spokane Tribe and the State (the Spokane Compact) became effective. In 2010, Tulalip requested negotiations with the State to amend its compact to enable Tulalip to acquire additional licenses to video player terminals licenses to video player terminals for Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. When negotiations broke down, Tulalip initiated suit, asserting that the “most-favored tribe” clause in the Tulalip Compact entitled it to the amendment because the mechanism was available to the Spokane Tribe but unavailable to Tulalip. The district court granted summary judgment to the State and denied Tulalip’s cross-motion for summary judgment. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the most-favored tribe clause did not require the State to adopt Tulalip’s proposed amendment because the amendment did not mirror the restrictions set forth the Spokane compact.
Court Description: Tribal-State Gaming Compacts. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in an action seeking amendment of a tribal-state gaming compact to enable the Tulalip Tribes of Washington to acquire additional licenses to video player terminals for Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The panel held that the district court did not err in its consideration of the parties’ simultaneous cross-motions for summary judgment. Distinguishing Idaho v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 465 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2006), the panel held that a “most-favored tribe” clause in the compact did not require the State of Washington to adopt Tulalip’s amendment, which did not mirror the restrictions set forth in another tribe’s compact.
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.