Tribes See A Payoff In Supreme Court Decision On Gambling Spokanes Say It Bolsters Argument For Not Negotiating With State

Attorneys for Washington state Indian tribes saw victory in a U.S. Supreme Court decision Wednesday prohibiting tribes from suing states over casino gambling or anything else.

But tribal and state officials in Eastern Washington and North Idaho predict the ruling will have little immediate impact.

In a Florida Indian gambling case, the Supreme Court held that tribes may not sue states when negotiations over casino gambling break down.

The decision is expected to kill a similar lawsuit by the Spokane Tribe. But it could strengthen the tribe’s argument that it doesn’t need a gambling compact with the state if negotiations fail and courts can’t mediate.

Washington state has signed agreements with 16 tribes to allow casinos without slot machines. But the Spokanes, Colvilles and other tribes are holding out for approval of the slot machines they already operate at several casinos.

The tribes consider slot machines vital because they produce much more revenue than other forms of gambling. State officials say the machines make it too easy for people to lose money.

Wednesday’s 5-4 decision struck down the portion of the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that allowed tribes to sue states in federal court if they can’t negotiate casino agreements with states, as required by the federal law.

The high court cited the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which generally prohibits individuals and companies from suing states in federal court.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist pointed out that the decision does not address Florida’s pending request for a ruling on other remedies that may be available to the Seminole Tribe.

Wednesday’s decision is a partial victory for the Spokane Tribe even though it “has created more questions than it has provided answers,” according to the tribe’s attorney, Scott Crowell of Kirkland, Wash.

John Hough, a senior state assistant attorney general, predicted Wednesday’s decision will have little effect on Washington state’s casino disputes with the Spokanes and other tribes. But he hailed the ruling because it shields the state from a variety of other lawsuits.

The Supreme Court reversed itself on a case cited by the Seminoles, and declared that a company could not sue Pennsylvania to try to force the state to help pay for an environmental cleanup.

Crowell agreed that aspect of the case was more significant than the impact on tribal casinos.

Still, Crowell believes Wednesday’s decision paves the way for the Supreme Court to determine that tribes don’t need state regulatory agreements if negotiations break down and court intervention isn’t allowed.

He predicted a Spokane Tribe lawsuit over the legality of slot machines will “take center stage” because it is the farthest advanced in the nation.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in 1994 that the Spokanes could continue to operate slot machines while federal courts review their legality. The case is unaffected by Wednesday’s ruling because it involves litigation with the federal government, not the state.

Meanwhile, Hough said the state intends to proceed with a friendly lawsuit the state filed late last year in U.S. District Court in Spokane. In that case, the state and several tribes are seeking a ruling on whether the state is required to negotiate about slot machines.

Steve Suagee, a Colville Confederated Tribes staff attorney, said the Colvilles are studying Wednesday’s ruling closely.

“It is a little premature to say exactly how we think this affects the Colville Tribes,” he said.

Suagee said he thinks the Seminole case partially reflects a 1993 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Frem Nielsen of Spokane. In that case, Suagee said, Nielsen ruled the Colvilles couldn’t sue the state and didn’t need a compact with the state if they had no redress in court.

Neither the Colvilles nor the state appealed that ruling.

The Colvilles sued the state in that case after the state insisted on renegotiating a tentative agreement that, ironically, would not have allowed the Colvilles to operate slot machines.

Like the Spokanes, the Colvilles now have several casinos with slot machines.

Deputy Idaho Attorney General Dave High said the ruling likely won’t affect the Coeur d’Alene, Kootenai or Nez Perce tribes of North Idaho, all of which already have gaming agreements with the state.

He said the ruling also likely won’t affect the Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s proposed “National Indian Lottery,” which is being opposed by more than a dozen states.

“I think the main impact will be on the Shoshone-Bannock tribes,” High said.

The Sho-Bans have accused Idaho of bad-faith negotiations over a proposed gaming agreement. The ShoBans are at odds with the state over so-called “video pull-tab” machines used at their Fort Hall bingo parlor. The state contends those machines - similar versions of which are used by the Coeur d’Alenes, Kootenais and Nez Perce - are casino-style games prohibited in Idaho.

High said the Sho-Bans lawsuit will likely be thrown out of court due to the Supreme Court ruling. But he predicted that the state and tribe, which were meeting again Wednesday, would be able to reach agreement.

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: BYLINE = John Craig Staff writer Staff writer Rich Roesler contributed to this report.