Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

National Indian Gaming Association

The forthcoming fight over the Alabama-Coushatta casino in Texas

I missed this report from November.

After more than 13 years, the feds say the Alabama-Coushatta’s casino in Livingston can finally reopen. And here’s the kicker: according to the federal government’s reasoning, the tribe’s casino should never have been forced to close in the first place.

[…]

Recently, the tribe asked the Department of Interior and National Indian Gaming Association to clarify their legal standing, gambling-wise. In October, the Interior Department and the National Indian Gaming Commission decided that the Alabama-Coushatta (along with the Tigua, a tribe located on a reservation near El Paso) do actually have the right to offer bingo and electronic bingo on the reservation, meaning the Alabama-Coushatta will soon be open for business.

The Interior Department warned both the Alabama-Coushatta and the Tigua to be careful and line everything up with the National Indian Gaming Commission, considering the state isn’t likely to be happy with this development. Bullock says they’re intent on doing everything by the book. “The state hasn’t responded to us yet. I can’t say what their position is. I can’t anticipate what they’ll do, and we’re not going to. We’re going to do what the federal government allows us to do and that’s all.”

At the end of the day, the casino re-opening will be a game-changer for the people living on the reservation. There’s no firm opening date, Bullock says. The casino has been standing empty and acting as a sort of community center for more than a decade, but the tribe has already voted unanimously to pull money out of their permanent funds to get the casino ready.

The story delves into the background of this longstanding battle, the tl;dr version of which is that the casino that was opened in 2001 was shut down in 2002 thanks to the efforts of then-AG John Cornyn, with some court skirmishes and behind-the-scenes maneuvering since then. I’ve got a couple of posts on the more recent activity here and here; if you have a long memory and a morbid curiosity, see also here for one of the side attractions of the original fight, which went beyond Texas and demonstrated was an unscrupulous dirtbag Ralph Reed is.

So does this mean there’s casino gambling coming to Texas next year? I wouldn’t count on it just yet, because the state of Texas isn’t going to just let it happen. This story from last week explains (the lawsuit in question stems from the original fight).

Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone issued an order requiring the Tiguas and other parties to the lawsuit to file their briefs on what the federal agency decision means.

On December 9 Paxton filed a brief on the Tiguas case — the tribe has been in a legal fight over the right to gamble for more than 20 years now — on the issue. Predictably he came down against it, contending that “no federal agency interpretation can contradict Congressional intent.”

The 26-page brief referenced 25 court cases and dug into eight “issues” that concerned the state, with most of the issues tugging at whether or not the National Indian Gaming Commission and the Department of the Interior had the right to even issue their opinion on gaming.

Paxton was pretty clear about what he thought:

“If Congress has explicitly left a gap for an agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute … Here there is no gap. The only issues presented are legal issues for this court. Congress delegated no power or authority to either federal agency to interpret laws or invalidate portions of federal law.”

Outside of the brief Paxton has officially stayed silent on the question of the Alabama-Coushatta. “At this point, we will not be providing any comment,” Spokeswoman Teresa Farfan replied via email in response to our questions.

However, the Alabama-Coushatta come up twice in Paxton’s brief. The first mention comes right at the start:

“Should Texas be required to join the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe to this litigation … without any evidence that the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe is currently violating the Restoration Act?”

Then, at the end of the brief he answers his own question:

“Since this litigation was filed to enjoin and hold accountable the Pueblo defendants for their continued violation of federal law embodied in the Restoration Act, there is no need to … add third-party tribes which, unlike the Pueblo defendants here, are not currently violating federal law.”

Translation: The Alabama-Coushatta aren’t currently violating the federal law so they won’t be in trouble with the state until they actually do something to violate the federal law, like, you know, maybe reopening their casino in 2016.

So yeah. I’d continue to make plans to visit Louisiana or Vegas to get my gamble on for the near future. The Alabama-Coushatta may eventually prevail, but if so it won’t be in 2016.