- Details
- By Chez Oxendine
- Gaming
A federal judge ruled that the Department of the Interior violated the due process rights of the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians when it rescinded the tribe’s gaming eligibility for a proposed casino in Vallejo, Calif. — a decision both sides are calling a win.
The ruling, issued Oct. 30 by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, vacates Interior’s March 27 rescission of the tribe’s gaming determination, but allows the department to continue reconsidering the project as long as it provides Scotts Valley with proper notice and opportunity to respond.
Scotts Valley called the ruling a victory for tribal sovereignty, while the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, a leading opponent of the project, said the decision gives Interior another chance to stop what it calls a flawed casino proposal.
“For nearly a decade, the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians has been trying to build a casino in Vallejo,” McFadden wrote. “The rescission infringed the Band’s due-process right.”
Scotts Valley Band Chairman Shawn Davis said he was pleased with the court’s decision.
“Despite our multiple attempts to engage with the department on this matter through proper tribal consultations, [Interior Secretary Doug Burgum] failed to engage with us,” Davis told the Times-Herald. “The Band is hopeful that the clarity provided by the Court will foster a more collaborative relationship with the Department moving forward.”
The Yocha Wintun Dehe Nation, one of several tribes that filed suit against the project’s initial approval by Interior, also welcomed the decision, according to a statement provided to Tribal Business News. By allowing Interior to continue its reconsideration, the tribe said, the court provided another opportunity to stop a “divisive project.”
“We are grateful the Department can continue doing the right thing by evaluating all evidence,” said Yocha Dehe Chairman Anthony Roberts in the statement. “We are confident this reconsideration process will reveal the truth Scotts Valley has attempted to hide from the very start – their ancestral lands are not in Vallejo, and they never were.”
The case stems from Interior’s Jan. 10 decision to take a Vallejo parcel into trust for Scotts Valley and declare it eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The agency reversed course less than three months later, citing concerns that it had not considered additional evidence submitted by neighboring tribes.
Interior told Scotts Valley that the parcel would remain in trust but that the tribe should not rely on the gaming determination while the agency reconsidered. Scotts Valley sued days later, arguing that the rescission and reconsideration violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment.
The court dismissed claims against the reconsideration, finding it was not a final agency action. But McFadden ruled that the rescission was final because it carried immediate legal consequences, including relieving California of its obligation to negotiate a gaming compact with the tribe.
Neighboring tribes including the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, United Auburn Indian Community and Lytton Rancheria opposed the Vallejo project. They argued that Scotts Valley lacked historical ties to the land and that a new casino would harm their own operations.
In court filings, Scotts Valley said it had already incurred nearly $1.9 million in project-related expenses and had begun compact negotiations with California’s governor before Interior reversed its decision.
McFadden rejected the tribe’s arguments that the rescission exceeded Interior’s authority or was the product of improper political influence. But he found that Interior failed to provide adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity for Scotts Valley to respond before revoking its gaming eligibility.
“The Band learned of the rescission only once it was a fait accompli,” McFadden wrote.
The ruling leaves Interior free to continue its review of the Vallejo parcel’s eligibility under IGRA’s “restored lands” exception, but requires the agency to provide due process if it seeks to revoke the determination again.
