25 U.S.C. § 2714
Judicial review
Decisions made by the Commission pursuant to sections 2710, 2711, 2712, and 2713 of this title shall be final agency decisions for purposes of appeal to the appropriate Federal district court pursuant to chapter 7 of title 5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2022 · leading case: At & T Corp. v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe, 295 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002).
At & T Corp. v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe, 295 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002). “25 U.S.C. § 2714 . The Chairman subsequently clarified in a letter — -in response to an inquiry about the Lottery’s legality 3 — that: In the opinion of the NIGC, the Tribe’s lottery proposal, which involves customers purchasing lottery tickets with a credit card both in person…”
At & T Corp. v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe, 283 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2002). “25 U.S.C. § 2714 . The Chairman subsequently clarified in a letter — in response to an inquiry about the Lottery’s legality 3 — that: In the opinion of the NIGC, the Tribe’s lottery proposal, which involves customers purchasing lottery tickets with a credit card both in person…”
In Re: Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa / Meskwaki Casino Litig., 340 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2003). “25 U.S.C. § 2714 (emphasis added). The APA itself precludes review of preliminary or intermediate agency action: Agency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review.”
North Cnty. Cmty. All., Inc. v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2009). “" 25 U.S.C. § 2714 . The NIGC's 1993 approval of the Nooksacks' Ordinance was a decision "made by the Commission pursuant to section[ ] 2710.”
Cayuga Nation v. Howard Tanner, 6 F.4th 361 (2d Cir. 2021). “Accordingly, we need not address the Village’s arguments regarding that provision. To the extent that the Village takes issue with the NIGC’s decision to authorize and regulate gambling at Lakeside, its remedy is to seek judicial review of that decision.”
Sharp Image Gaming, Inc. v. Shingle Springs Band Indians, 223 Cal. Rptr. 3d 362 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “( 25 U.S.C. § 2714 ; U.S. ex rel. Saint v. President (2d Cir.”
Gaming Corp. of Am. Golden Nickel Casinos, Inc. v. Dorsey & Whitney, a P'ship, in Re Dorsey & Whitney, a P'ship, 88 F.3d 536 (8th Cir. 1996). “25 U.S.C. § 2714 . As in Metropolitan Life and Avco , Congress apparently intended that challenges to substantive decisions regarding the governance of Indian gaming would be made in federal courts.”
Cheyenne-Arapaho Gaming Comm'n v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 214 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (N.D. Okla. 2002). “See 25 U.S.C. § 2714 (b). The closure order or fine may issue if the tribal gaming operation fails to correct violations, fails to pay the required fees, operates a Class III gaming machine without a Tribal-State compact, operates a Class II gaming machine without a license from…”
Hartman v. Kickapoo Tribe Gaming Comm'n, 319 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2003). “Athough Congress did provide that certain decisions by the NIGC made under various provisions of IGRA are subject to federal court review under the Administrative Procedures Act, see 25 U.S.C. § 2714 , 1 the district court correctly pointed out that nowhere does IGRA expressly…”
State of Kansas v. Nat'l Indian Gaming, 861 F.3d 1024 (10th Cir. 2017). “See 25 U.S.C. § 2714 . Under § 2714, courts may review “[djecisions made by the Commission pursuant to sections 2710 [tribal gaming ordinances], 2711 [management contracts], 2712 [existing ordinances and contracts], and 2713 [civil penalties or closures for gaming conducted in…”
Citizens Against Casino Gambling v. Chaudhuri, 802 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2015). “” 25 U.S.C. § 2714 . Where a “final agency action” is presented for review, “intermediate actions leading up to that final action are reviewable as well.”
Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan v. Ashcroft, 360 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2004). “” 25 U.S.C. § 2714 . “The omission of a provision thereby shows Congressional intent to prohibit judicial review over any other agency actions as opposed to the few already granted express jurisdiction.”
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.