Tribes say governor negotiated in bad faith on casinos

Attorneys representing several tribes submitted notices of seven related cases accusing Gov. Gavin Newsom's administration of negotiating in bad faith.

Each case involves a California casino tribe that signed a gaming compact in 1999 that will expire at the end of this year. Every complaint made similar claims that the administration illegally sought to force tribes to enforce state labor, environmental and child support laws.

"What these cases are about is the state insisting on including in new compacts what we believe to be 14 issues that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act does not include as proper subjects of negotiation," said attorney George Forman.

He added, "Some of the provisions are not necessarily things with which a tribe might disagree. It's just that the compact is not the way to impose these."

Forman is the founding partner of Forman & Associates, a San Rafael law firm specialized in representing tribes. He filed a notice citing six other cases on Friday in Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria v. State of California, 1:20-cv-01539-NONE-SKO (E.D. Cal., filed Oct. 30, 2020).

He represents four of the tribes. Other tribes are represented by attorneys including Lester J. Marston of Rapport & Marston in Ukiah and Frank R. Lawrence in Grass Valley.

The notices largely reconstitute a coalition that had been attempting to negotiate as a group for new deals. The tribes were all members of the Compact Tribes Steering Committee, though several dropped out when they filed their cases.

The notice argues all of the cases should go before Senior U.S. District Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Several are already assigned to him.

"Reassigning this action to Judge Ishii would spare the court to which this action initially was assigned from having to become familiar with the record of the first four+ years of the parties' negotiations," Forman argued in the notice.

The Newsom administration and Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office did not respond to emails seeking comment.

The act is a 1988 federal law that established the jurisdictional framework for tribal gaming across the county. Tribes made concessions in the 1999 compacts in areas not covered by the federal law, Forman said, but added the state also made concessions on outside areas -- something he said Newsom has not offered.

The notices repeat claims made in each complaint that the administration has brought in topics not among the "enumerated subjects that ... may be included in a compact, and thus are not proper subjects of negotiation."

The notices mention specific areas where the governor allegedly sought concessions, including spousal support, child support, minimum wage, contributions to a state fund to benefit other tribes, environmental laws, agreements with local governments, anti-discrimination laws, and other labor laws relating to hours and working conditions. Tribes are at least partially covered by federal labor and environmental laws, but tribal sovereignty exempts them from many state requirements.

The act also specifies some topics to include in compact negotiations. These include criminal and civil jurisdiction, rules to keep out organized crime, taxes and fees related to the state's cost for administering gaming laws, and remedies for breach of contract.

The other cases are Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians v. State of California, 1:20-cv-01147-AWI-SKO (E.D. Cal., filed Aug. 15, 2020), Cahuilla Band of Indians v. State of California, 2:20-cv-01630-AWI-SKO, (E.D. Cal., filed Aug. 13, 2020), Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians v. State of California, 2:20-cv-01585-AWI-SKO (E.D. Cal., filed Aug. 7, 2020), Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. State of California, 1:19-cv-00024-AWI-SKO (E.D. Cal., filed Jan. 4, 2019), Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Newsom, 1:20-cv-01318-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal., filed Sept. 15, 2020), and Pit River Tribe v. Newsom, 2:20-cv-01918-TLN-DMC (E.D. Cal., filed Sept. 24, 2020).

Ishii called a scheduling conference on Nov. 12 for several cases.