15 August 2008
Casino Chronicles #47
Bruce Jackson
Don't talk to me, judge tells attorneys in Buffalo casino case
Judge William M. Skretny, the U.S. District Court judge presiding over the lawsuit brought by a number of Buffalo citizens and citizens’ groups to block the Seneca Gaming Corporation’s Buffalo casino, has cancelled oral argument that had been scheduled for the afternoon of August 21.“Having reviewed all of the submissions received on [63] Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce and Defendants' Motion to Remand,” the judge wrote, in an electronic memo distributed early this afternoon, “the Court finds that oral argument is not necessary. The motions are deemed submitted. The oral argument scheduled for 8/21/2008 at 2:00 p.m. is hereby adjourned. A Decision on the motions will be issued on or before 8/26/2008.”
There are two motions before the court. The plaintiffs asked the judge to provide enforcement to his July 8 decision finding the authorization from the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) unfounded in law, which means gambling cannot legally take place on the Senecas’ nine-acre tract in downtown Buffalo. They asked the judge to order the NIGC to take immediate steps to shut down the Senecas’ temporary Buffalo casino, and, if that action weren’t taken, to order U.S. marshals to do the job.
The U.S. Justice Department (acting as attorney for the defendants in the case—various officials in the Department of the Interior and the NIGC) came back with a motion of its own asking the judge to let everything revert to square one. The Department of Interior, their motion said, had changed its internal rules so the justification for the judge’s decision was no longer valid. Their motion was accompanied by a thick amicus brief from attorneys for the Seneca Nation of Indians (who are not named in the plaintiffs' lawsuit).
The plaintiffs responded to several parts of the Justice Department motion, but the weightiest objection seemed to be that the judge was bound by the law, not by agency administrative procedures that were themselves interpretations of the law, and there was, therefore, no reason for the judge to reverse himself or let everybody pretend that nothing had ever happened.
The Justice Department then responded to the Motion to Enforce (again with an amicus brief from the Senecas’ attorneys), basically restating the rationale for remand: the Secretary of the Interior has changed the Department’s rules so everything that happened previously this case is without weight or meaning. The plaintiffs responded to that (this time pointing out that the change in rules seemed designed specifically to fit this lawsuit). Yesterday, the Justice Department responded to the plaintiffs' response to the Justice Department motion.
It was a lot of paper going back and forth, much of it saying the same things over in different ways or at greater length. The main points seem to be:
--the plaintiffs are saying to the judge that unless he takes steps to get the casino closed or to close it himself his earlier ruling would be meaningless.
--the defendants are saying that the rules have changed so the judge should drop out of this and let the Department of Interior take over.
--the judge is saying he’s heard enough about all of this from the plaintiffs’ attorneys, the Justice Department attorneys and the Senecas’ attorneys, he has no need or desire to listen to any of them repeat what he’s already read and understands as well as any of them, and that he will announce on or before August 26 whether he is going to order the casino shut down, have it shut down by marshals, send the case back to Interior for another round, or order some other option entirely.
Stay tuned.
Copyright 2008 by Buffalo Report, Inc.