- Barona Group of … Mission Indians v. American Management & Amusement case brief
a. REVIEW OF AGENCY DECISIONS
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.
d. EQUAL PROTECTION- MANAGEMENT COMPANIES
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.
h. RELATIVE TO INDIAN LAND
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