Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Barona Group of … Mission Indians v. American Management & Amusement case brief

    1. Barona Group of … Mission Indians v. American Management & Amusement case brief
b.      Generally, great deference is show to an administrative agency’s interpretation of the law which it is charged with administering.
c.       Courts do not merely stand aside and rubber-stamp their affirmance of admin decisions that they deem inconsistent with a statutory mandate or that frustrate the congressional policy underlying a statute.
e.       14th Amendment equal protection claim is moot since 1) it does not apply to the Federal Government and 2) the argument that the preference it gives to the tribe is neither reasonable nor rationally related to any need to protect the Indians in not valid.
f.       Statute requiring approval of Bureau of Indian Affairs and Secretary of Interior in order to validate agreement relative to Indian lands does not violate equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, in that such clause is not applicable to Federal Government and in that federal legislation with respect to Indian tribes is not based on impermissible or racial classifications.
g.      The preference, as applied, is granted to Indians not as a discrete racial group, but, rather, as members of quasi-sovereign tribal entities.
i.        Agreement stating that bingo management contractor had “exclusive right and obligation to finance, construct, improve, develop, and manage, operate and maintain property” was sufficient to find that agreement was “relative to Indian lands,” and thus since it did not bear endorsement or approval of Bureau of Indian Affairs or Secretary, it was null and void even though agreement prohibited tribe from encumbering tribal trust land.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.