 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doe v. Pueblo6/28/2005
ork for gaming activities on Indian lands which . . . established the framework under which Indian tribes and states could negotiate compacts permitting Class III gaming on Indian reservations located within state territory." Gallegos v. Pueblo of Tesuque, 2002-NMSC-012, 9, 132 N.M. 207, 46 P.3d 668 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In order to engage in Class III gaming operations, Santa Clara was required to enter into a compact with the State of New Mexico (the Compact). See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1) (1988). The compact in question was negotiated in 2000 under the Compact Negotiation Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 11-13A-1 to -5 (1999), and became effective in 2001. See NMSA 1978, § 11-13-1 (1997, and 2004 Supp. compiler's note); see also 66 Fed. Reg. 64856-01 (Dec. 14, 2001) (notice of Secretary of the Interior approval of compacts between New Mexico and, among others, Santa Clara).
Under the Compact, Santa Clara waived its sovereign immunity for personal injury claims filed by visitors to the Casino. It also agreed that New Mexico law would apply to such personal injury claims. However, the Compact left unsettled in which court such claims could be pursued. Obviously intended to permit Santa Clara to test jurisdiction shifting, Section 8(A) of the Compact states that "any such claim [for bodily injury] may be brought in state district court, including claims arising on tribal land, unless it is finally determined by a state or federal court that IGRA does not permit the shifting of jurisdiction over visitors' personal injury suits to state court."
Unless changed by "governing Acts of Congress," tribal courts retain exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising on tribal lands against tribes, including tribal entities and tribal members. Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 220 (1959). Through Public Law 83-280, Act of August 15, 1953, ch. 505, §§ 6, 7, 67 Stat. 590, Congress granted jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters involving reservation Indians to the states that were willing to accept it. See Williams, 358 U.S. at 222; Your Food Stores, Inc. v. Vill. of Espanola, 68 N.M. 327, 332, 361 P.2d 950, 954 (1961). New Mexico did not elect to assume jurisdiction over tribal lands. Id. New Mexico courts have recognized that " xclusive tribal jurisdiction exists . . . when an Indian is being sued by a non-Indian over an occurrence or transaction arising in Indian country." Found. Reserve Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 105 N.M. 514, 516, 734 P.2d 754, 756 (1987) (citations omitted); see Tempest Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Belone, 2003-NMSC-019, 14, 134 N.M. 133, 74 P.3d 67. Plaintiff acknowledges "that without . . . Congressional authority, state courts lack the power to entertain lawsuits against tribal entities." If New Mexico courts have subject matter jurisdiction in this case, the jurisdictional authority must derive from the IGRA.
Section 2710(d)(3)(C) sets out the provisions that may be included in a negotiated compact that are pertinent to the issue before us. Section 2710(d)(3)(C) permits compact provisions relating to:
(i) the application of the criminal and civil laws and regulations of the Indian tribe or the tate 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 tate and the Indian tribe necessary for the enforcement of such laws and regulations[.]
Section 2710(d)(3)(C)(ii) plainly permits an allocation of jurisdiction only as necessary for the enforcement of laws and regulations that are directly related to and necessary for licensing and regulation of Class III gaming activities. In the IGRA, including § 2710(d)(3)(C)(i
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.
|
|