25 C.F.R. § 291.1
Purpose and scope
The regulations in this part establish procedures that the Secretary will use to promulgate rules for the conduct of Class III Indian gaming when:
(a) A State and an Indian tribe are unable to voluntarily agree to a compact and;
(b) The State has asserted its immunity from suit brought by an Indian tribe under 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(7)(B).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 2007–2019 · leading case: Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2007).
Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2007). “25 C.F.R. §§ 291.1 (b), 291.3. In such event, an eligible tribe may submit a Class III gaming proposal to the Secretary, who then affords the state sixty days to comment and submit an alternative proposal.”
New Mexico v. Dep't of the Interior, 854 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2017). “Under these regulations, when a district court dismisses a suit following a state’s assertion of sovereign immunity, the tribe “may ask the Secretary to issue Class III gaming procedures” by submitting proposed procedures. 2 25 C.F.R.”
Pueblo of Pojoaque v. New Mexico, 214 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (D.N.M. 2016). “These regulations provide that, where “[a] State and an Indian tribe are unable to voluntarily agree to a compact” and “[t]he state has asserted its immunity from suit brought by an Indian tribe,” 25 C.F.R. Part 291.1, then a tribe “may use the Secretarial Procedures to obtain…”
Pueblo of Pojoaque v. New Mexico, 233 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (D.N.M. 2017). “These regulations provide that, where “[a] State and an Indian tribe are unable to voluntarily agree to a compact” and “[t]he state has asserted its immunity from suit brought by an Indian tribe,” 25 C.F.R. Part 291.1, a tribe “may use the Secretarial Procedures to obtain…”
State v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 363 F. Supp. 3d 45 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “The Department has promulgated regulations allowing the Secretary to prescribe secretarial procedures when a state raises an Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity defense to a tribe's lawsuit alleging that the state did not negotiate in good faith.”
Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation v. Schwarzenegger, 602 F. Supp. 3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010). “The dissent suggests that 25 C.F.R. §§ 291.1 et seq. is a potential vehicle for tribes to challenge state demands, Dissent at 1073.”
State v. Dep't of the Interior, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (D.N.M. 2014). “2710(d)(7)(B),” 25 C.F.R. § 291.1 (1999), then an Indian tribe may use the Secretarial Procedures to obtain permission to operate Class III gaming without the State’s consent.”
New Mexico v. Dep't of the Interior, 269 F. Supp. 3d 1145 (D.N.M. 2014). “§ 2710 (d)(7)(B),” 25 C.F.R. § 291.1 (1999), an Indian tribe may apply for Secretarial Procedures to operate Class III gaming without a compact with the State.”
State of Texas v. USA (5th Cir. 2007). “25 C.F.R. §§ 291.1 (b), 291.3. In such event, an eligible tribe may submit a Class III gaming proposal to the Secretary, who then affords the state sixty days to comment and submit an alternative proposal.”
State of Connecticut v. Zinke (D.D.C. 2019). “3 The Department has promulgated regulations allowing the Secretary to prescribe secretarial procedures when a state raises an Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity defense to a tribe’s lawsuit alleging that the state did not negotiate in good faith.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.