Opponents of the Koi Nation’s Shiloh Casino Resort project received unexpected backing last week when Governor Gavin Newsom and the State of California filed a federal lawsuit against the US Department of the Interior (DOI). The action challenges the agency’s decision to greenlight the proposed casino development on 68.6 acres in Sonoma County by granting the Nation’s land trust application.
In its request for injunctive relief, Newsom’s office accuses the DOI of bypassing safeguards using a statutory exception, which it argues is “unsupported by the record, dismissive of state sovereignty, and contrary to federal law.”
According to the filing, the decision to take legal action is necessary to protect citizens and tribes and stop governmental encroachment in state affairs.
This case is about respecting the history of tribal sovereigns, protecting communities from unchecked casino-style gaming, and preventing federal administrative overreach.
As recourse, the plaintiffs asked the court to void the DOI’s decision and declare that the site is ineligible for gaming under the “restored lands” exception.
State says DOI decision circumvented safeguards
The lawsuit, filed in the District Court of Northern California on May 2, challenges the approval of a casino development on land near Windsor.
As proposed, the complex would house a 400-room hotel, 2,750 slot machines, 105 table games, and facilities for welcoming more than 10,000 guests.
As noted by Courthouse News Service, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) typically prohibits gaming on lands acquired after Oct. 17, 1988. However, there are exceptions. In this case, the DOI cited the “restored lands” rule. The exception allows gaming on newly acquired land tied to “the restoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to Federal recognition.”
However, the state contends that invoking the exception circumvented necessary safeguards. Specifically, it references a process that typically requires consultation with local officials and the governor’s buy-in.
From the filing:
“The record on which Interior relied in its decision is insufficient to show that the acquisition of the Shiloh Site constitutes a ‘restoration’ of the Koi Nation’s tribal lands. Interior’s decision is therefore contrary to law, and otherwise arbitrary and capricious.”
‘Significant historical connection’ to land remains unproven
The lawsuit further challenges the DOI’s determination that the Kois hold a “significant historical connection” to the land.
While the feds based their decision on census reports, trade routes, and burial grounds, the state argues there’s no evidence of an enduring tribal presence.
“The presence of individual tribal ancestors, during the twentieth century, is not the same thing as the collective presence of the Tribe itself. Moreover, it does not establish that the Tribe exercised sovereignty or control over its land—as necessary to support the view that extending tribal sovereignty and control over the Shiloh Site represents a “restoration.” The presence of individual tribe members during the twentieth century cannot be sufficient to justify the “restored lands” exception: otherwise, that “exception” could swallow the rule.”
The plaintiffs contrast the Koi Nation’s connection to the Shiloh lands with its ancestral ties to lands 30 miles away near Clear Lake.
“The lack of evidence in the record for the Koi Nation’s enduring, collective presence on the Shiloh Site stands in contrast to the extensive evidence that the Koi Nation itself has articulated its enduring, collective presence in its Clear Lake homeland.”
Decision forces’ unwanted obligations’ on the state
The state also contends that the DOI’s decision conflicts with promises made to California voters when they legalized tribal gaming 25 years ago.
“California voters were promised that tribes’ casino-style gaming would remain carefully limited geographically.”
Further, they argue that the DOI’s choice to resolve “perceived gaps or inconsistencies” in the historical record in the Koi’s favor is legally flawed. Specifically, they point out that opposition among other tribes, some of which launched a similar lawsuit in February, indicates a conflict of interest.
“It was legal error for Interior to conclude that it should fill evidentiary gaps or resolve factual inconsistencies in the Koi Nation’s favor. See Decision Letter at 19. Even if the so-called “Indian canon” (a canon of statutory construction) could somehow bear on the resolution of disputed facts, that canon has no application where “all tribal interests are not aligned.”
Finally, the lawsuit suggests that the decision will require the state to negotiate a gaming compact against its will. If negotiations fail, California could lose regulatory powers over the Shiloh lands.
“By circumventing the two-part determination process, Interior has deprived the governor and the state of their rights to engage in consultation, to be protected by the Secretary’s determination that gaming would not be detrimental to surrounding communities within the State’s jurisdiction.”
