Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians (Picayune) operates the Chukchansi Gold Resort and Casino on its Rancheria lands. The North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians (North Fork) sought to develop the North Fork Mono Casino & Resort on the Madera Parcel, a 305-acre parcel in Madera County taken into trust by the Secretary of the Interior in 2013. In 2011, the Secretary issued a two-part determination under 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(A) finding that gaming on the Madera Parcel would be in the best interest of North Fork and not detrimental to the surrounding community. Governor Edmund G. Brown concurred in 2012.
After the California legislature ratified a tribal-state compact, a state referendum (Proposition 48) rejected the ratification in 2014. California then refused to negotiate a new compact, leading the Secretary to issue Secretarial Procedures in 2016 authorizing Class III gaming on the Madera Parcel. In 2024, the NIGC Chair approved a management contract between North Fork and the Nominal Defendants (Station Casinos LLC, Red Rock Resorts, Inc., and SC Madera Management, LLC). Picayune filed suit in June 2026, alleging the Chair’s approval violated the APA because the Governor’s concurrence was void ab initio under California law (as held by the California Court of Appeal in December 2025), and that North Fork’s planned gaming violated the Secretarial Procedures. Picayune moved for a preliminary injunction and stay; North Fork and the Nominal Defendants moved to dismiss.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Picayune’s motion for a preliminary injunction and stay, granted the Nominal Defendants’ motion to dismiss the APA claim, and granted North Fork’s motion to dismiss in part. The court held that the NIGC Chair was not required to review the validity of the Governor’s 2012 concurrence under § 2719(b)(1)(A) when approving the management contract in 2024, as IGRA and its implementing regulations do not impose such a duty. The Chair’s approval was therefore not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The court further held that while Picayune has a cause of action under § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) to enjoin Class III gaming in violation of Secretarial Procedures (per Blue Lake Rancheria v.
Kalshi, Inc.), North Fork retains tribal sovereign immunity from such a suit because § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) does not unequivocally abrogate immunity for claims based on a tribe’s violation of its own Secretarial Procedures. The court also found Picayune failed to show a likelihood of irreparable harm, noting its delay in filing suit after the 2025 state court decision and insufficient evidence of revenue loss. The balance of equities and public interest weighed against an injunction given the severe financial harm to North Fork. The APA claim was dismissed as to North Fork and the Nominal Defendants as pleaded; the IGRA claim against North Fork was dismissed as pleaded based on sovereign immunity.
Key Takeaways
- The NIGC Chair has no statutory duty to re-evaluate the validity of a Governor’s concurrence under 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(A) when approving a management contract under 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(9), where the Secretary previously relied on that concurrence to take land into trust and issue Secretarial Procedures.
- While 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) provides a cause of action for a tribe to enjoin Class III gaming in violation of another tribe’s Secretarial Procedures (Blue Lake Rancheria), it does not abrogate the defendant tribe’s sovereign immunity for such claims.
- Tribal sovereign immunity is preserved unless Congress ‘unequivocally expresses’ its intent to abrogate; the clear statement rule requires the abrogation to be clearly discernable from the statute itself.
- A plaintiff’s delay in seeking a preliminary injunction—here, over two months after the California Supreme Court denied review of the key state law decision—weighs heavily against a finding of irreparable harm.
- The balance of equities favors denying an injunction where the movant faces potential future revenue loss from competition, while the opposing tribe faces immediate, catastrophic financial harm including bankruptcy and loss of over 1,200 jobs.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the limited scope of the NIGC Chair’s review authority when approving tribal gaming management contracts, holding that the Chair need not second-guess the Secretary’s prior determinations regarding land eligibility and gubernatorial concurrence under § 2719(b)(1)(A). It also establishes an important limit on tribal sovereign immunity abrogation under IGRA: while tribes may sue to enforce Secretarial Procedures against non-tribal entities (per Blue Lake Rancheria), they cannot sue another tribe for violating its own Secretarial Procedures because § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) only clearly abrogates immunity for suits involving violations of tribal-state compacts.
The ruling reinforces the principle that statutory abrogations of tribal sovereign immunity must be narrowly construed and cannot be implied. Practically, the decision allows the North Fork casino to proceed toward opening, rejecting a challenge based on a state court’s retroactive invalidation of a gubernatorial concurrence that had been accepted by federal officials for over a decade.