(a) If the Secretary determines that the Indian tribe is eligible to request Class III gaming procedures and that the Indian tribe's proposal is complete, the Secretary must submit the Indian tribe's proposal to the Governor and the Attorney General of the State where the gaming is proposed.
(b) The Governor and Attorney General will have 60 days to comment on:
(1) Whether the State is in agreement with the Indian tribe's proposal;
(2) Whether the proposal is consistent with relevant provisions of the laws of the State;
(3) Whether contemplated gaming activities are permitted in the State for any purposes, by any person, organization, or entity.
(c) The Secretary will also invite the State's Governor and Attorney General to submit an alternative proposal to the Indian tribe's proposed Class III gaming procedures.
Notes of Decisions
Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 4× “25 C.F.R. § 291.7 . At that point, the Secretarial Procedures prescribe two tracks depending on whether the state chooses to submit an alternative compact proposal.”
New Mexico v. Dep't of the Interior, 854 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 3× “25 C.F.R. § 291.7 (a), (b). The Secretary “will also invite the [state] to submit an alternative proposal.”
New Mexico v. Dep't of the Interior, 269 F. Supp. 3d 1145 (D.N.M. 2014).
· cites it 2× “25 C.F.R. § 291.7 (1999). The State may comment on the Tribe’s proposal and even propose its own.”
State v. Dep't of the Interior, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (D.N.M. 2014).
“25 C.F.R. § 291.7 (1999). The State may object to the tribe’s proposal and even propose its own.”
State of Texas v. USA (5th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 3× “25 C.F.R. § 291.7 . At that point, the Secretarial Procedures prescribe two tracks depending on whether the state chooses to submit an alternative compact proposal.”
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.