Indian Law & Gaming
INDIAN LAW & GAMING
We deliver creative strategies and decisive practical guidance and counseling to work through sophisticated transactions and resolve complex disputes concerning economic development, sovereignty and gaming initiatives.
The laws and policies that govern American Indian tribes, tribal gaming and tribal businesses are complex and continually evolving. We use a collaborative cross-practice approach, staying abreast of legislation, lobbying efforts, energy developments and significant cases impacting Indian Nations so that we can sense ahead while working closely with clients on tactical decisions to keep the focus on the desired outcome. We are recognized by Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business for having a nationally-ranked Indian law practice, and because we bring a profound understanding of Indian law to a variety of clients and engagements. We represent tribes, individual tribal officers, non-tribal entities that do business with tribes and municipalities that interact with tribes on regulatory and governance issues. No matter who the client is, we can draw on two decades of experience handling some of the most sophisticated Indian law matters in the country.
Who we work with
- Tribes and tribal officers
- Non-tribal entities such as industry trade groups and citizen groups
- Non-tribal entities doing business with Indian tribes
- Bond counsel to the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians in connection with a tax-exempt bond financing to acquire additional land to be used for tribal purposes.
- Bond counsel to the Lower Brule Sioux tribe in connection with a tax-exempt bond financing to build roads and other capital improvements on tribal lands.
- Underwriter’s counsel on tax-exempt bond financings on behalf of the Seminole, Apache and Navajo Nations.
- We represent numerous energy firms (i.e., wind and hydropower companies) exploring opportunities in Indian Country. Our work includes assisting an independent power producer in connection with FERC licensing of a hydroelectric facility, and assisting a financing company investing in a wind power project.
- We represent the CFO and chairman of a tribe in connection with a federal government investigation.
Regulatory and Jurisdictional
- Madison and Oneida Counties, New York
Oneida Land Claim—We represented the counties and obtained summary judgment dismissing the claims (which was affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals).
Oneida Settlement Agreement—We represented the counties in a historic multi-party settlement that resolved all outstanding jurisdictional, taxing,and regulatory disputes, including land-into-trust litigation.
- Stockbridge Munsee Tribal Land Claim
We represent counties and several towns (and one village) in defending against claims by the Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians that they have been unlawfully excluded from their reservation in central New York. The claims were dismissed on summary judgment and the Tribe has appealed that ruling to the Second Circuit.
- Counties of Napa and Sonoma, California
Mishewal Wappo Restoration Claim—We represent the counties in an action seeking restoration of federal tribal recognition and the taking of lands into trust.
- 4 Issues Tribal Advocates Want The Supreme Court To Avoid
Law360 | July 29, 2016
Rochester commercial litigation partner David Tennant is quoted in this article which covers four key questions attorneys for Native American tribes are leery of the high court tackling.
- DOI Seeks To Pare Challenge Of Approval Of Mass. Tribe Trust
Law360 | April 20, 2016
Rochester partner David Tennant and Boston associate Matthew Frankel are noted as counsel representing Massachusetts residents in a case involving land the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe has put into a trust for a $500 million casino project.
- Neb. Tribe's High Court Win Doesn't Clinch Tax Power
Law360 | March 23, 2016
Rochester commercial litigation partner David Tennant is quoted in this article about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday granting a Nebraska tribe a win by ruling that a federal land act didn't reduce the size of its reservation.