 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doe v. Pueblo6/28/2005
New Mexico has disclaimed jurisdiction over Indians and Indian land); N.M. Const. art. XXI, § 2 (same). Therefore, if New Mexico courts have subject matter jurisdiction in this case it must derive from the IGRA.
The IGRA sets out the provisions that may be included in a compact negotiated to facilitate Class III gaming activities. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d). In pertinent part, a tribal-state compact may include provisions relating to:
(i) the application of the criminal and civil laws and regulations of the Indian tribe or the State that are directly related to, and necessary for, the licensing and regulation of such activity;
(ii) the allocation of criminal and civil jurisdiction between the State and the Indian tribe necessary for the enforcement of such laws and regulations[.] 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(C). Based on these provisions, Santa Clara argues that New Mexico's state courts lack jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claims because her "personal injury claims have nothing to do with the `licensing or regulation' of lass III gaming activities." We disagree.
Pursuant to the IGRA and the Compact Negotiation Act, New Mexico and Santa Clara entered negotiations to form a compact to permit Santa Clara to offer Class III gaming on its tribal land. The Compact that emerged from their "good faith negotiations" devotes an entire section to defining the mechanism by which visitors may be compensated for their injuries. In particular, the Compact expressly allows visitors to bring their claims in state court. Because the State and Santa Clara negotiated and agreed to address remedies for visitor injuries in the Compact, it is apparent that both parties themselves determined that apportioning jurisdiction over the claims of injured visitors was "directly related to, and necessary for, the licensing and regulation of [Class III gaming] activity." See §§ 2710(d)(3)(C)(i), (ii). The legislative history of the IGRA demonstrates that Congress intended the scope of each tribal-state gaming compact to be determined by the parties in the course of their negotiations as equal sovereigns. We therefore conclude that it is not the province of this Court to second-guess that determination.
Legislative History of the IGRA
The dispute over Indian gaming began when the Seminole Tribe of Florida opened its first bingo hall in 1979. S. Rep. No. 100-446, at 2 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3071, 3072; see Seminole Tribe v. Butterworth, 658 F.2d 310, 311-12 (5th Cir. 1981). Following Seminole Tribe, Indian gaming continued to be a contentious issue between tribes and states. See, e.g., Iowa Tribe v. Kansas, 787 F.2d 1434, 1435-36 (10th Cir. 1986) (involving dispute between state and tribe over the sale of pull-tabs on the tribe's reservation); Lac du Flambeau Band v. Williquette, 629 F. Supp. 689, 691 (W.D. Wis. 1986) (same); Penobscot Nation v. Stilphen, 461 A.2d 478, 480 (Me. 1983) (involving dispute between state and tribe over the enforcement of state bingo laws on the tribe's reservation). Many states attempted to assert jurisdiction over gaming on tribal land because of concerns over the potential for gaming to attract criminal elements. S. Rep. No. 100-446, at 2, 5. However, tribes strongly resisted these efforts based on their sovereign right to self-government and the threat such efforts posed to the significant economic benefits that gaming was conferring on their members. Id. at 2-3; see 134 Cong. Rec. 25,376 (1988) (statement of Ariz. Rep. Morris Udall) (noting that the "basic problem . . . has been the conflict between the right of tribal self- government and the desire for tate jurisdiction over gaming activity on Indian lands").
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|