In a victory for the Washington gaming tribes, the United States Supreme Court denied Maverick Gaming LLC’s (Maverick) petition for a writ of certiorari (cert) in upholding the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States.2 The lawsuit was initially brought against certain Federal Government Defendants to challenge the legality of the Washington tribal-state compacts under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), among other claims. The Ninth Circuit dismissed on the grounds that Maverick was unable to join any tribes as necessary and indispensable parties based on their sovereign immunity.
The tribal-state compact between Washington and the various tribes allows for certain types of gaming and sports betting, classified as Class III gaming, on tribal land, which the State does not otherwise permit. Maverick, a casino operator, had lobbied for legislation permitting non-tribal entities to operate gaming facilities. Instead, the Washington legislature passed a law allowing only tribes to conduct Class III gaming pursuant to the IGRA. Maverick sued in Washington federal court but did not include any tribes as parties in the matter.
The Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe (Tribe) intervened in the suit, contending they were a “necessary and indispensable” party because the outcome of the case directly impacted them. The federal court agreed that the Tribe was a required party under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 19(a)(1)(B), but determined that they could not be joined as a result of their sovereign immunity status.
The Ninth Circuit upheld the lower federal court’s dismissal of the case. The Circuit Court agreed the Tribe was a required party as a result of its protected interest in the outcome and that the case could not continue “in equity and good conscience” without the Tribe.3
The lower court had concluded the Tribe was a “required party” under Rule 19 “because the Tribe has a legally protected interest in the lawsuit that may be impaired or impeded in the Tribe’s absence.”4 The Ninth Circuit agreed and noted the suit “implicates the Tribe’s legally protected economic and sovereign interests.”5 Maverick’s suit did not “incidentally affect the gaming tribes [. . . it was] aimed at the tribes and their gaming.”6
The Ninth Circuit refuted the argument that the Federal Defendants could sufficiently argue on the Tribe’s behalf because, while they had a similar interest in the overall outcome of the case, their reasoning behind the desired outcome differed in a meaningful sense. Alignment on the outcome was deemed insufficient for the Federal Defendants to serve as adequate representatives for the non-joinable Tribe.
Although the Tribe was determined to be a necessary and indispensable party, the Tribe could not be joined due to tribal sovereign immunity. Specifically, pursuant to long-standing Federal Indian Law principles, a tribe cannot be sued without their consent or a specific Congressional statute authorizing as such. Here, although the Tribe intervened in the suit to protect their sovereign immunity interests, the Tribe did not waive their sovereign immunity in doing so, and thus could not be joined even after the federal court found they were a required party to the suit.
The cert denial in this instance means that certain concerns implicating the Administrative Procedures Act will remain unaddressed unless raised in a future case.
The Ninth Circuit precedent here preserves non-joinable parties’ rights when they have a legally protected interest in the suit and guarantees that they are part of decisions that directly affect them. Additionally, allowing the Ninth Circuit precedent to remain in place re-emphasizes the importance of tribal sovereign immunity and respect for tribes’ independence to conduct gaming on their lands.
Footnotes
-
Special thanks in the preparation of this legal alert to Maya Dominguez, rising third-year law student at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University and summer associate with Snell & Wilmer. She is not yet admitted to practice law.
-
Maverick Gaming LLC v. USA, No. 23-35136, 2024 WL 5100829 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2024).
-
Id. at *4.
-
Id. at *20.
-
Id. at *21.
-
Id. at *42.
