(a) No later than 90 days after the submission of any amendment to a class II ordinance or resolution the Chair shall approve the amendment if the Chair finds that:
(1) A tribe meets the amendment submission requirements of § 522.3(b); and
(2) The amendment complies with § 522.5(b).
(b) No later than 90 days after a tribe submits any amendment to a class II ordinance for approval, the Chair may disapprove the amendment if the Chair determines—
(1) A tribe failed to comply with the amendment submission requirements of § 522.3; or
(2) The amendment does not comply with § 522.5(b).
(c) No later than 90 days after the submission of any amendment to a class III ordinance or resolution, the Chair shall approve the amendment if the Chair finds that—
(1) A tribe meets the amendment submission requirements of § 522.3(b); and
(2) The amendment complies with § 522.7(b) and (c).
(d) No later than 90 days after a tribe submits any amendment to a class III ordinance for approval, the Chair may disapprove the amendment if the Chair determines that—
(1) A tribal governing body did not adopt the amendment in compliance with the governing documents of the tribe;
(2) The amendment does not comply with § 522.7(b) and (c); or
(3) A tribal governing body was significantly and unduly influenced in the adoption of the amendment by a person having a direct or indirect financial interest in a management contract, a person having management responsibility for a management contract, or their agents.
(e) The Chair shall notify a tribe of its right to appeal a disapproval under part 582 of this chapter. A disapproval shall be effective immediately unless appealed under part 582 of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
North Cnty. Cmty. All., Inc. v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “§ 2710(b)(2)(A)-(C), (E); see also 25 C.F.R. §§ 522.4 , 522.6. There is no explicit requirement in IGRA that, as a precondition to the NIGC's approval, a proposed ordinance identify the specific sites on which the *745 proposed gaming is to take place.”
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Josh Haeder, 938 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 2019).
“7; 25 C.F.R § 522.4(b)(7). Rather, consistent with IGRA’s purpose to promote tribal self-sufficiency, NIGC leaves the management of casino construction to the tribes.”
Sas & Fox Tribe of Mississippi in Iowa v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 830 (N.D. Iowa 2003).
“§ 2710 (b)(2)(A), 25 C.F.R. § 522.4 (b)(1); (B) the forcible occupation of the gaming operation and tribal offices by Respondent Bear’s appointees leaves the federally recognized government unable to regain control without use of force, thereby creating a threat to public…”
Bettor Racing, Inc. v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 47 F. Supp. 3d 912 (D.S.D. 2014).
“§ 2702 (2); 25 C.F.R. §§ 522.4 (b)(1); 522.6(c). The IGRA caps management fees at 30 percent of net revenues, unless certain conditions are met in which case the management fees are not to exceed 40 percent of net revenues.”
Berry v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022).
· cites it 2× “(citing 25 C.F.R. §§ 522.4 (b)(7), 3 573.4(a)(12)), as well as Supreme Court breach of trust cases, id.”
North Cnty. Cmty. All., Inc. v. Kempthorne (9th Cir. 2009).
“§ 2710(b)(2)(A)-(C), (E); see also 25 C.F.R. §§ 522.4 , 522.6. [6] There is no explicit requirement in IGRA that, as a pre- condition to the NIGC’s approval, a proposed ordinance iden- tify the specific sites on which the proposed gaming is to take place.”
— 25 C.F.R. § 522.4(b)(7) — 1 case
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Josh Haeder, 938 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 2019).
“7; 25 C.F.R § 522.4(b)(7). Rather, consistent with IGRA’s purpose to promote tribal self-sufficiency, NIGC leaves the management of casino construction to the tribes.”
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.