KG Urban Enterprises, LLC v. Patrick

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 12-1233
KG URBAN ENTERPRISES, LLC,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
DEVAL L. PATRICK, in his official capacity as Governor of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS OF THE
MASSACHUSETTS GAMING COMMISSION, in their official capacities,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Lipez and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Paul D. Clement, with whom Jeffrey M. Harris, Brian J. Field,
Bancroft PLLC, Kevin M. Considine, Alexander Furey, and Considine
& Furey, LLP were on brief, for appellant.
Kenneth W. Salinger, Assistant Attorney General, with whom
Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts, was on brief,
for appellee.
Jeffrey Pokorak, Lorie Graham, and Nicole Friederichs on brief
for Suffolk University Law School's Indian Law and Indigenous
Peoples Clinic, amicus curiae.
August 1, 2012
LYNCH, Chief Judge. This appeal raises a constitutional
challenge to certain provisions of a 2011 Massachusetts law, "An
Act Establishing Expanded Gaming in the Commonwealth" (the
Massachusetts Gaming Act), 2011 Mass. Acts ch. 194 (largely
codified at Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 23K), which sets procedures and
standards for authorizing legalized gaming in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
KG Urban Enterprises, LLC, a potential applicant for a
gaming license, argues that § 91 of the Act provides unauthorized
preferences to Indian tribes and on that basis treats the southeast
section of the state differently, and this constitutes a
classification on the basis of race in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is inconsistent
with Congressional intent in the federal Indian gaming statute.
We affirm the denial of KG's request for injunctive and
declaratory relief as to § 91, reject the remainder of KG's claims,
vacate the district court's dismissal of the complaint, and remand
for such further proceedings as may be appropriate.
I.
This case involves two statutory schemes, one state and
one federal. The state scheme is the Massachusetts Gaming Act.
The federal scheme is the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25
U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721, which establishes a cooperative federal-state-
-2-
tribal regime for regulating gaming by federally recognized Indian
tribes on Indian lands.
A. The Massachusetts Gaming Act
The Massachusetts Gaming Act was enacted on November 22,
2011. The Act establishes "a Massachusetts gaming commission" (the
Commission), which consists of five commissioners, defendants here.
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 23K, § 3(a). The Commission is the principal
entity charged with implementing the provisions of the Act,
including the licensing scheme at issue.
The Act authorizes gaming through the Commission's
issuance of "Category 1" and "Category 2" licenses. A category 2
license, not at issue here, allows the licensee "to operate a
gaming establishment with no table games and not more than 1,250
slot machines." Id. § 2. A category 1 license "permits the
licensee to operate a gaming establishment with table games and
slot machines." Id.
As to category 1 licenses, the Act creates three
"regions," regions A, B, and C, corresponding to counties; region
A covers the Boston area, B the western portion of the state, and
C the southeastern portion of the state. See id. § 19(a). The
Commission "may issue not more than 3 category 1 licenses based on
the applications and bids submitted to the commission. Not more
than 1 license shall be awarded per region." Id.
-3-
While the statute states that "[n]ot more than 1 license
shall be awarded per region," the statute appears to contemplate
that three category 1 licenses will be awarded in total. The
statute specifies the circumstances where a category 1 license is
not to be awarded in a region: "if the commission is not convinced
that there is an applicant that has both met the eligibility
criteria and provided convincing evidence that the applicant will
provide value to the region in which the gaming establishment is
proposed to be located and to the commonwealth, no gaming license
shall be awarded in that region."1 Id.
This case concerns certain special provisions for
category 1 licenses in the southeast region only, which is where
the state's only federally recognized Indian tribes are located.
We describe the statewide procedures before turning to the special
procedures which treat the southeast differently.
1. The Statewide Procedures
The Commission's solicitation of applications for
category 1 licenses is a key initial step in the category 1
licensing process. The Act does not set a deadline by which the
1
The Chairman of the Commission has stated that the
legislation was passed on an underlying economic assumption that
"[t]he market can handle three casinos." Arsenault, Studies Back
4 Gaming Sites, Bos. Globe, June 15, 2012, at B1. The Commission
recently held a forum to evaluate whether the state can in fact
support three category 1 casinos, at which the Chairman stated that
the economic "assumptions that were the underpinnings of the law
still hold." Id.
-4-
Commission must solicit applications for category 1 licenses, nor
does the Act establish any timeframe for such solicitation.
Rather, the Act provides that "[t]he commission shall issue a
request for applications for category 1 and category 2 licenses;
provided, however, that the commission shall first issue a request
for applications for the category 2 licenses." Id. § 8(a). The
Commission is required to set deadlines for the receipt of all such
applications, id. § 8(c), and to "prescribe the form of the
application," which must require certain detailed information about
the entity requesting a license and its proposal, id. § 9(a).
Once the application is reviewed,2 the Commission is to
"identify which communities shall be designated as the surrounding
communities of a proposed gaming establishment." Id. § 17(a). The
applicant must reach an agreement with the surrounding communities
"setting forth the conditions to have a gaming establishment
located in proximity to the surrounding communities," id. § 15(9),
before the application process may continue, id. § 17(a). The
Commission is then to hold a public hearing within the host
community of the gaming site. Id. § 17(c).
2
Upon receiving the application, the Commission is to take
a variety of steps in reviewing the application and make a variety
of assessments as to an applicant's qualifications, according to
requirements enumerated in the statute, which we need not outline
here. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 23K, §§ 12(a), 12(c), 13(a), 15-16,
18.
-5-
Between thirty and ninety days after the hearing, the
Commission is to take action on the application: it must either
grant a license, deny a license, or extend the period for issuing
a decision by up to thirty days. Id. § 17(e). Licenses "shall
only be issued to applicants who are qualified under the criteria
set forth in [the Act], as determined by the commission." Id.
§ 19(a). As said, the Commission may under certain conditions
determine that "no gaming license shall be awarded in that region."
Id. Moreover, the Commission has "full discretion as to whether to
issue a license." Id. § 17(g). The Act provides that the
Commission's decision as to whether to issue a license is not
reviewable: "Applicants shall have no legal right or privilege to
a gaming license and shall not be entitled to any further review if
denied by the commission." Id.
A license is to be valid for an initial fifteen-year
period. Id. § 19(b). Further, if a license is granted "no other
gaming license shall be issued by the commission in any region
during that 15-year period." Id. The Commission is to establish
license renewal procedures. Id. Licenses may not be transferred
without majority approval of the Commission. Id. § 19(c).
2. Section 91 of the Act
Section 91, which is not codified in Chapter 23K, forms
the basis of KG's primary challenge. 2011 Mass. Acts ch. 194,
§ 91. Section 91(a) provides that "[n]otwithstanding any general
-6-
or special law or rule or regulation to the contrary, the governor
may enter into a compact with a federally recognized Indian tribe
in the commonwealth." Id. § 91(a). The Commission is, upon
request of the Governor, to assist in negotiating the compact. Id.
§ 91(b). The Governor may "only enter into negotiations under this
section with a tribe that has purchased, or entered into an
agreement to purchase, a parcel of land for the proposed tribal
gaming development and scheduled a vote in the host communities for
approval of the proposed tribal gaming development." Id. § 91(c).
If a compact is negotiated, it must "be submitted to the general
court for approval." Id. § 91(d).
We divide subsection (e), on which KG's equal protection
challenge focuses, into its two component clauses, which provide:
Notwithstanding any general or special law or
rule or regulation to the contrary, if a
mutually agreed-upon compact has not been
negotiated by the governor and Indian tribe or
if such compact has not been approved by the
general court before July 31, 2012, the
commission shall issue a request for
applications for a category 1 license in
Region C pursuant to chapter 23K of the
General Laws not later than October 31, 2012;
provided, however, that if, at any time on or
after August 1, 2012, the commission
determines that the tribe will not have land
taken into trust by the United States
Secretary of the Interior, the commission
shall consider bids for a category 1 license
in Region C under said chapter 23K.
Id. § 91(e). It appears that all aspects of the state-law
components of the first clause have, as of the date of this
-7-
opinion, been complied with. These statutory procedures have been
supplemented by the terms of the state-law compact entered into by
the Governor and the Mashpee Wampanoag, as described later.
The statute does not, by its literal terms, preclude
issuance of a category 1 license in Region C if a compact has been
approved. However, KG argued before the district court and on
appeal that the statute does bar issuance of a license if a compact
is approved by the legislature by July 31 and the Commission has
not then determined that the tribe will not have land taken into
trust. The defendants do not dispute that interpretation of the
statute.
Moreover, the approved compact provides:
Section 91 of the Act provides that if a
compact negotiated by the Governor is approved
by the General Court by July 31, 2012, the
[Commission] will not issue a request for
Category 1 License applications in Region C
unless and until it determines that the Tribe
will not have land taken into trust for it by
the United States Secretary of the Interior.
Mashpee Tribal-State Compact § 2.6.3 The compact repeatedly refers
to the tribe's "exclusive" rights to conduct gaming in Region C if
the compact receives legislative approval by July 31, 2012.4 See
3
See H. 4260, 187th Gen. Court (Mass. 2012) (tribal-state
compact as submitted by the Governor to the Massachusetts
legislature).
4
The compact also contains a section governing what would
happen "[i]f the Tribe's exclusive right to operate a casino within
Region C is abrogated by the lawful issuance of a Category 1
License to operate a casino in Region C." Mashpee Tribal-State
-8-
id. § 2.8 (noting that approval of the compact by the Massachusetts
legislature by July 31, 2012 "will provide exclusivity in Region C
for the Tribe"); id. § 9.1.4 (stating that if a compact is approved
by the legislature by July 31, 2012, the Tribe would have "the
opportunity to operate a casino in Region C on an exclusive
basis"); id. § 9.1.5 (stating that "[p]roviding such exclusivity
would also further the Commonwealth's policy of controlling the
expansion of Gaming within Massachusetts, by limiting the total
number of casinos within the Commonwealth to three"); id. § 9.2
(referring to "the creation, on an exclusive basis, of the
opportunity to conduct casino gaming in Region C").
3. Other Tribe-Related Provisions
The Massachusetts Gaming Act also contains several other
provisions relating to Indian gaming. The Act appropriates $5
million for use in negotiating and executing "a compact with a
federally recognized Indian tribe in the commonwealth to establish
a tribal casino in region C." 2011 Mass. Acts ch. 194, § 2A. The
Commission is empowered to "provide assistance to the governor in
negotiating a compact with a federally-recognized Indian tribe in
the commonwealth." Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 23K, § 4(40). The
Commission is required to:
Compact § 9.2.4. This provision allows the tribe to "elect to
either: (a) cease operations of its casino within sixty (60) days,"
or "(b) continue under this Compact but reduce the Allocation [to
the Commonwealth] to fifteen percent (15%) of Gross Gaming
Revenues." Id.
-9-
continue to evaluate the status of Indian
tribes in the commonwealth including, without
limitation, gaining federal recognition or
taking land into trust for tribal economic
development. The commission shall evaluate
and make a recommendation to the governor and
the chairs of the joint committee on economic
development and emerging technologies as to
whether it would be in the best interest of
the commonwealth to enter into any
negotiations with those tribes for the purpose
of establishing Class III gaming on tribal
land.
Id. § 67.
The Act creates a thirteen member "gaming policy advisory
committee," and requires one of the governor's eight appointees to
the committee to "be a representative of a federally recognized
Indian tribe in the commonwealth." Id. § 68(a). The committee
must meet at least once a year to make advisory recommendations to
the Commission. Id. The Act expressly provides that the
committee's recommendations "shall not be binding on the
commission." Id.
B. The IGRA
"Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988
in order to provide a statutory basis for the operation and
regulation of gaming by Indian tribes." Seminole Tribe of Fla. v.
Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 48 (1996). The IGRA was passed in part in
response to the Court's decision in California v. Cabazon Band of
Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987), which held that California
lacked authority to regulate bingo gambling conducted by Indian
-10-
tribes on Indian land within the state. Id. at 221-22. The IGRA
creates a cooperative federal-state-tribal scheme for regulation of
gaming hosted by federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian land.
In doing so the IGRA allows the states a limited and closely
defined role in the process. It also limits the conditions under
which tribes are allowed to enter into gaming. Both of these
limits are implicated in this case.
The IGRA categorizes gaming into three classes: Class I
consists of "social games solely for prizes of minimal value or
traditional forms of Indian gaming," 25 U.S.C. § 2703(6), Class II
consists of bingo and certain card games that are either authorized
by the law of the state or not explicitly prohibited by the state
and played in the state, id. § 2703(7), and Class III consists of
all other forms of gaming, id. § 2703(8). A category 1 license
would fall within Class III gaming.
The IGRA sets out when Class III gaming may be conducted:
Class III gaming activities shall be lawful on
Indian lands only if such activities are--
(A) authorized by an ordinance or resolution
that--
(i) is adopted by the governing body of
the Indian tribe having jurisdiction
over such lands,
(ii) meets the requirements of
subsection (b) of this section, and
-11-
(iii) is approved by the Chairman,5
(B) located in a State that permits such
gaming for any purpose by any person,
organization, or entity, and
(C) conducted in conformance with a
Tribal-State compact entered into by the
Indian tribe and the State under paragraph (3)
that is in effect.
Id. § 2710(d)(1). Compliance with these conditions is required
from both states and tribes.
At the heart of this case are the provisions of the IGRA
which make clear that tribal gaming may only be conducted by an
"Indian tribe" on "Indian lands," as both terms are defined in the
IGRA. See, e.g., id. ("Class III gaming activities shall be lawful
on Indian lands only if . . . ." (emphasis added)); id.
§ 2710(d)(2)(C) ("[C]lass III gaming activity on the Indian lands
of the Indian tribe shall be fully subject to the terms and
5
The term "Chairman" refers to the chair of the National
Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), created by the IGRA within the
Department of the Interior to undertake certain functions related
to Indian gaming. 25 U.S.C. § 2704.
The Chairman must approve any tribal ordinance allowing
gaming "unless the Chairman specifically determines that-- (i) the
ordinance or resolution was not adopted in compliance with the
governing documents of the Indian tribe, or (ii) the tribal
governing body was significantly and unduly influenced in the
adoption of such ordinance or resolution by any person identified
in section 2711(e)(1)(D) of this title." Id. § 2710(d)(2)(B).
The NIGC has authority to levy and collect fines and
initiate proceedings to shut down gaming operations against tribal
operators or contractors engaged in gaming, "for any violation of
any provision of this chapter, any regulation prescribed by the
Commission pursuant to this chapter, or tribal regulations,
ordinances, or resolutions approved under section 2710 or 2712 of
this title." Id. § 2713(a)(1).
-12-
conditions of the Tribal-State compact . . . ." (emphasis added));
id. § 2710(d)(8)(A) ("The Secretary [of the Interior] is authorized
to approve any Tribal-State compact entered into between an Indian
tribe and a State governing gaming on Indian lands of such Indian
tribe." (emphasis added)). The Supreme Court has recently remarked
that under the IGRA, "an Indian tribe may conduct gaming operations
on 'Indian lands.'" Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi
Indians v. Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199, 2203 n.1 (2012).
We highlight the two key IGRA provisions important to the
equal protection challenge at issue here: the Indian lands
definition and the compact process, both described below.
The IGRA defines the term "Indian tribe" as "any Indian
tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community of
Indians which-- (A) is recognized as eligible by the Secretary for
the special programs and services provided by the United States to
Indians because of their status as Indians, and (B) is recognized
as possessing powers of self-government." 25 U.S.C. § 2703(5).
Of particular importance is the term "Indian lands,"
which is defined as:
(A) all lands within the limits of any Indian
reservation; and
(B) any lands title to which is either held in
trust by the United States for the benefit of
any Indian tribe or individual or held by any
Indian tribe or individual subject to
restriction by the United States against
alienation and over which an Indian tribe
exercises governmental power.
-13-
Id. § 2703(4).
The IGRA also makes clear that gaming may only be
conducted if a tribal-state compact is negotiated and approved by
the Secretary of the Interior. Id. § 2710(d)(1)(C), (d)(3)(B). As
to the tribal-state negotiation process, the IGRA provides:
(A) Any Indian tribe having jurisdiction over
the Indian lands upon which a class III gaming
activity is being conducted, or is to be
conducted, shall request the State in which
such lands are located to enter into
negotiations for the purpose of entering into
a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct
of gaming activities. Upon receiving such a
request, the State shall negotiate with the
Indian tribe in good faith to enter into such
a compact.6
(B) Any State and any Indian tribe may enter
into a Tribal-State compact governing gaming
activities on the Indian lands of the Indian
tribe, but such compact shall take effect only
when notice of approval by the Secretary of
such compact has been published by the
Secretary in the Federal Register.
6
The IGRA confers jurisdiction on the United States district
courts over, inter alia, "any cause of action initiated by an
Indian tribe arising from the failure of a State to enter into
negotiations with the Indian tribe for the purpose of entering into
a Tribal-State compact under paragraph (3) or to conduct such
negotiations in good faith." 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(i). The
provisions of that subsection "describe an elaborate remedial
scheme designed to ensure the formation of a Tribal-State compact."
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 50 (1996).
The Seminole Tribe Court held that Congress lacked
authority to abrogate the states' sovereign immunity to allow suit
to be brought to enforce the good-faith requirement. Id. at 47.
The Court also held that the Ex parte Young doctrine may not be
used to enforce that requirement against state officials, and
instead only the remedial scheme of § 2710(d)(7) may be used to
enforce that right. Id. at 47, 76.
-14-
Id. § 2710(d)(3). Tribal-state compacts "may" cover a variety of
subjects, including any "subjects that are directly related to the
operation of gaming activities." Id. § 2710(d)(3)(C)(vii).
After such compacts are negotiated, they must be
submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval. The IGRA
provides: "(A) The Secretary is authorized to approve any
Tribal-State compact entered into between an Indian tribe and a
State governing gaming on Indian lands of such Indian tribe." Id.
§ 2710(d)(8).
Assuming there is a compact as defined in (A), the IGRA
goes on to provide:
(B) The Secretary may disapprove a compact
described in subparagraph (A) only if such
compact violates--
(i) any provision of this chapter,
(ii) any other provision of Federal law
that does not relate to jurisdiction
over gaming on Indian lands, or
(iii) the trust obligations of the
United States to Indians.
(C) If the Secretary does not approve or
disapprove a compact described in subparagraph
(A) before the date that is 45 days after the
date on which the compact is submitted to the
Secretary for approval, the compact shall be
considered to have been approved by the
Secretary, but only to the extent the compact
is consistent with the provisions of this
chapter.
(D) The Secretary shall publish in the Federal
Register notice of any Tribal-State compact
-15-
that is approved, or considered to have been
approved, under this paragraph.
Id. Once a tribal-state compact is negotiated and approved by the
Secretary, and the other requirements of § 2710(d)(1) are met,
Class III gaming may be conducted.
The IGRA contains additional provisions in another
section governing "[g]aming on lands acquired after October 17,
1988." Id. § 2719. The lands here were acquired by the Mashpee
after October 17, 1988. This section provides that, except as
provided in subsections (a) and (b), "gaming regulated by this
chapter shall not be conducted on lands acquired by the Secretary
in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe after October 17,
1988." Id. § 2719(a). Subsection (a) contains two exceptions
relating to Indian reservations not relevant here. Subsection (b)
contains several exceptions relevant only to particular tribes
listed in the statute, and two general exceptions:
(1) Subsection (a) of this section will not
apply when–
(A) the Secretary, after consultation
with the Indian tribe and appropriate
State and local officials, including
officials of other nearby Indian
tribes, determines that a gaming
establishment on newly acquired lands
would be in the best interest of the
Indian tribe and its members, and would
not be detrimental to the surrounding
community, but only if the Governor of
the State in which the gaming activity
is to be conducted concurs in the
Secretary's determination; or
-16-
(B) lands are taken into trust as part
of–
(i) a settlement of a land claim,
(ii) the initial reservation of an
Indian tribe acknowledged by the
Secretary under the Federal
acknowledgment process, or
(iii) the restoration of lands for
an Indian tribe that is restored
to Federal recognition.
Id. § 2719(b). This section also provides that "[n]othing in this
section shall affect or diminish the authority and responsibility
of the Secretary to take the land into trust." Id. § 2719(c).
The statute conferring authority on the Secretary of the
Interior to take land into trust is 25 U.S.C. § 465, which
authorizes the Secretary to take land into trust "for the purpose
of providing land for Indians." Id. Section 479 provides that
"[t]he term 'Indian' as used in this Act shall include all persons
of Indian descent who are members of any recognized Indian tribe
now under Federal jurisdiction." Id. § 479. The Secretary has
promulgated regulations governing the land into trust process. 25
C.F.R. pt. 151.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the language of § 479
in a way which directly impacts the analysis here. In Carcieri v.
Salazar, 129 S. Ct. 1058 (2009), the Court held that "for purposes
of § 479, the phrase 'now under Federal jurisdiction' refers to a
tribe that was under federal jurisdiction at the time of the
-17-
statute's enactment" in June 1934. 129 S. Ct. at 1061. The Court
held that since the tribe at issue there had not argued that it was
under federal jurisdiction in 1934, and the evidence in the record
was undisputed and to the contrary, the Secretary lacked authority
to take land into trust for the tribe. Id. at 1068. Neither the
Mashpee nor the Aquinnah, the two federally recognized tribes in
Massachusetts,7 were federally recognized in 1934,8 raising the
serious issue of whether the Secretary has any authority, absent
Congressional action, to take lands into trust for either tribe.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Breyer stated that the
"interpretation that reads 'now' as meaning 'in 1934' may prove
somewhat less restrictive than it at first appears" because "a
tribe may have been 'under Federal jurisdiction' in 1934 even
though the Federal Government did not believe so at the time." Id.
at 1069 (Breyer, J., concurring). Justice Souter and Justice
Ginsburg, concurring in part and dissenting in part, agreed with
7
The most recent list of federally recognized tribes
published by the Bureau of Indian Affairs lists only these two
tribes as Massachusetts tribes. See Indian Entities Recognized and
Eligible to Receive Services From the United States Bureau of
Indian Affairs, 75 Fed. Reg. 60,810, 60,811, 60,813 (Oct. 1, 2010).
8
See Final Determination for Federal Acknowledgment of the
Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc. of Massachusetts, 72
Fed. Reg. 8,007 (Feb. 22, 2007) (finding that the Mashpee meet the
criteria for federal acknowledgment under 25 C.F.R. § 83.7); Final
Determination for Federal Acknowledgment of the Wampanoag Tribal
Council of Gay Head, Inc., 52 Fed. Reg. 4,193 (Feb. 10, 1987)
(finding that the Aquinnah meet the criteria for federal
acknowledgment under 25 C.F.R. § 83.7).
-18-
this analysis. Id. at 1071 (Souter, J., concurring). We do not
know whether the Mashpee's land in trust application to the
Secretary includes any such allegation or support for such a claim.
No party has provided such information.
The Court recently summarized Carcieri as holding that
"§ 465 authorizes the Secretary to take land into trust only for
tribes that were 'under federal jurisdiction' in 1934." Match-E-
Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, 132 S. Ct. at 2204.
In a footnote, the Court remarked that it was not addressing the
scope of Carcieri, including whether the tribe at issue there "was
'under federal jurisdiction' in 1934, as Carcieri requires," and
"how that question relates to Patchak's allegation that the Band
was not 'federally recognized' at the time." Id. at 2204 n.2.
II.
A. The Complaint
KG Urban Enterprises, LLC, is an equity development
company that specializes in the redevelopment of urban brownfield
sites. Over the past four years, it has invested $4.6 million
dollars in preparing a plan for converting a site in downtown New
Bedford, Massachusetts, into an over $1 billion multi-use property
that includes a gaming facility. KG plans on applying for a Region
C gaming license for that property "as soon as it is permitted to
do so."
-19-
KG filed its complaint on November 22, 2011, the same day
the Massachusetts Gaming Act was passed, naming as defendants the
Governor of Massachusetts and the Commission members.
KG's complaint alleged, and the parties agree on appeal,
that there are two federally recognized tribes in Massachusetts --
the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head
(Aquinnah), both officially recognized after 1934. The Mashpee
possess no Indian lands in Massachusetts. The Mashpee have passed
a tribal ordinance authorizing gaming, which has been approved by
the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), satisfying one of the
IGRA's requirements to conduct Class III gaming. See Letter from
Tracie L. Stevens, Chairwoman, Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, to
Cedric Cromwell, Chairperson and President, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe
(June 5, 2012), available at http://www.nigc.gov/
Portals/0/NIGC%20Uploads/readingroom/gamingordinances/
mashpeewampanoagtribe/Mashpee.pdf. The letter from the NIGC
approving the ordinance noted that "any Class III gaming must be
conducted pursuant to a gaming compact entered into with the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or pursuant to Class III gaming
procedures approved by the Secretary of the Interior." Id. As to
Indian lands, the letter stated that "[i]t is also my understanding
that the Tribe has not yet acquired Indian lands as defined by
IGRA. It is therefore important to note that approval is granted
-20-
for gaming only on Indian lands, as defined in IGRA, over which the
tribe has jurisdiction." Id.The Mashpee and the Governor of Massachusetts entered
into a tribal-state compact on July 12, 2012. The compact provides
that gaming may only be conducted on an "Approved Gaming Site"
defined as "a single site on Indian Lands, as defined in IGRA, that
is legally eligible under IGRA for the conduct of" gaming. Mashpee
Tribal-State Compact § 3.3. The compact further provides that "the
Tribe is authorized to operate [gaming] only in accordance with
this Compact, IGRA and the Tribal Gaming Ordinance and the Tribe
shall only conduct such Gaming on Indian Lands as authorized under
IGRA." Id. § 4.1. The compact notes that "[t]he Tribe presently
has no lands held in trust, for Gaming purposes or otherwise." Id.
§ 9.1.1. The compact provides it is to "become effective upon the
publication of notice of approval by the United States Secretary of
the Interior in the Federal Register in accordance with" the IGRA.
Id. § 22. The compact was approved by the House of the
Massachusetts legislature on July 18, 2012, and by the Senate on
July 26, 2012. H. 4261, 187th Gen. Court (Mass. 2012). It is
against this general backdrop that the legal issues are framed.
The most powerful of KG's theories on appeal is that § 91
of the Massachusetts Gaming Act discriminates on the basis of race,
harming KG's ability to seek a commercial gaming license and the
terms that would govern any such license, in violation of the Equal
-21-
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.9 The essence of the
argument is that while there are two federally recognized tribes,
the Mashpee and the Aquinnah, neither possesses any Indian lands
and so tribal gaming cannot be authorized under the IGRA.10 KG
argues that since the Secretary has not (and most likely cannot
under present law) authorize a Mashpee-Massachusetts gaming compact
under the IGRA, the state has excluded KG from entering the gaming
market and given the Mashpee a preference unlimited in duration.
Since only the federal government, not the state, has plenary power
to give tribes preferences (and even then limited), the state's
attempt to prefer the Mashpee is a form of race discrimination and
is not authorized by Congress. KG argues that such racial
discrimination requires more than mere rationality to justify it;
the discrimination practiced here is inherently suspect and entails
the highest scrutiny. The weakness of the state's rationale for
this preference is demonstrated by the inherent tension between
§ 91 and the "Indian lands" provision of the IGRA. For the same
reasons, KG argues that § 91 violates the Massachusetts Declaration
of Rights.
9
The complaint also alleged that § 91 is preempted by the
IGRA insofar as it authorizes Class III gaming without requiring
that the IGRA's requirements be complied with. This claim is not
pursued on appeal.
10
While the Aquinnah possess a small parcel of land, the
Commonwealth has taken the position that they have waived their
right to conduct gaming on that land.
-22-
KG's complaint also raised equal protection claims as to
the $5 million in funding for negotiation of a compact and the seat
reserved for a representative of a federally recognized Indian
tribe on the advisory committee.
The complaint alleged that § 91 of the Act caused and
will cause to KG several injuries: (1) "KG will be locked out of
the application process for a gaming license until July 31, 2012,
and may never have an opportunity to compete for a license," if a
tribal-state compact is entered into, (2) the uncertainty over
whether non-tribal entities would be able to apply for a gaming
license causes harm and is deterring investors and operators from
pursuing opportunities in the southeast region, and (3) even if
non-tribal applications were at some point accepted, licensees in
Region C would be at a competitive disadvantage because the other
two regions were likely to have operational casinos before Region
C. The complaint further alleged that because "the federal process
for awarding land-in-trust is in a state of paralysis in the wake
of Carcieri . . . there is no prospect that the Mashpee Wampanoag
will be in a position to engage in casino-style gaming consistent
with the IGRA in the foreseeable future."
As to relief, KG requested (1) a declaratory judgment
that the Massachusetts Gaming Act is unconstitutional in its
entirety, or at a minimum as to its Indian tribe related
provisions; (2) a declaration that the Act is preempted to the
-23-
extent it authorizes Indian tribes to engage in gaming without
complying with the IGRA; (3) a preliminary and permanent injunction
preventing the defendants from enforcing the unlawful provisions of
the Massachusetts Gaming Act, and (4) an award of reasonable
attorneys' fees.
B. Procedural History
The same day it filed the complaint, KG also filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction blocking the defendants from
enforcing the challenged provisions of the Act. In support of the
motion, KG attached an affidavit of KG's managing director, which
essentially reiterated the facts as to KG's New Bedford project and
the injuries to KG arising out of § 91 as alleged.
The defendants opposed the motion on the merits, and
argued that KG's claims regarding § 91 were not ripe and the court
accordingly lacked jurisdiction. The defendants also submitted, on
January 27, 2012, an affidavit from Stephen P. Crosby, who was
appointed Chairman of the Gaming Commission on December 13, 2011,
stating that the Commission "will almost certainly not be accepting
applications any earlier than October 2012," and possibly not until
sometime in 2013. The Chairman was the only member of the
Commission to be appointed at that point, the remaining members
would need to be appointed,11 and then the Commission would need to
11
The remaining members have since been appointed, with the
final two members appointed on March 20, 2012. See Press Release,
Governor Deval Patrick, Five-Member Massachusetts Gaming Commission
-24-
hire staff, develop criteria for applications, request applications
for category 2 licenses, and only then finally solicit category 1
license applications. The affidavit concluded by stating that
there was "little to no chance that the Commission will be in a
position to award or issue any category 1 license before the second
half of 2013."
On February 16, 2012, the district court denied KG's
request for a preliminary injunction. KG Urban Enters., LLC v.
Patrick, 839 F. Supp. 2d 388, 407 (D. Mass. 2012). The court first
found that the issues of ripeness, standing, sovereign immunity,
and Pullman abstention did not preclude it from addressing the
merits, with the exception of KG's challenge to the advisory
committee seat, which the district court dismissed on standing
grounds. Id. at 396-99.
On the merits, the court rejected both of KG's legal
theories. The court held that the Massachusetts Gaming Act was not
preempted by the IGRA, in part because § 91 "does not create a
separate tribal gaming regime in Massachusetts but rather
establishes the procedures by which IGRA-authorized compacting may
take place under Massachusetts law." Id. at 401.
Now Complete And Moving Forward With Business (Mar. 20, 2012),
available at http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/
pressreleases/2012/2012320-five-member-gaming-commission-
now-complete.html.
-25-
The court also rejected the equal protection claim as to
§ 91. The court treated the equal protection claims under federal
law and state law as "coextensive" with one another. Id. at 402.
The court reasoned that because § 91 of the Massachusetts Gaming
Act was enacted in the state's exercise of its authority delegated
to it under the IGRA, the Court's holding in Washington v.
Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S.
463 (1979), mandated that only rational basis review be applied to
the statute, rather than strict scrutiny. KG Urban Enters., 839 F.
Supp. 2d at 404-05. Applying that standard, the court found that
the rational basis test was satisfied. Id. at 405-06.
The district court also dismissed the complaint,
explaining that "because plaintiff brings only a facial equal
protection challenge to the Gaming Act and no further briefing or
proceedings would affect this Court's constitutional analysis,"
dismissal was proper. Id. at 407. KG appeals.
III.
KG's equal protection claim presents a question of law
and so is reviewed de novo. See, e.g., United States v. Rehlander,
666 F.3d 45, 47 (1st Cir. 2012) ("The issues before us are legal
and our review is therefore de novo."). We review the district
court's dismissal of the complaint de novo. See
Feliciano-Hernández v. Pereira-Castillo, 663 F.3d 527, 532 (1st
Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 183 L. Ed. 2d 615 (2012). KG requests
-26-
not only that its complaint be reinstated, but that the case be
remanded with judgment entered in its favor and that § 91(e) be
permanently enjoined. We review denials of both permanent and
preliminary injunctive relief for abuse of discretion (with legal
issues reviewed de novo). Mercado-Salinas v. Bart Enters. Int'l,
Ltd., 671 F.3d 12, 19-20 (1st Cir. 2011); Animal Welfare Inst. v.
Martin, 623 F.3d 19, 26 (1st Cir. 2010).
KG has narrowed the claims it has pursued on appeal. KG
no longer advances its claim that the Massachusetts Gaming Act is
directly in conflict with and so preempted by the IGRA, because the
Commonwealth has conceded that nothing in the Massachusetts Gaming
Act contemplated authorization of tribal gaming outside of the
IGRA. KG has also declined to advance any argument as to the $5
million appropriation for use in negotiating a tribal-state
compact.
Defendants argue (1) that KG's claim as to § 91 is not
ripe and (2) that KG has no standing to challenge the composition
of the advisory committee established by the Massachusetts Gaming
Act.
We address the challenge to the advisory committee and
KG's state-law claim before turning to the challenge to § 91.
A. Standing to Pursue Advisory Committee Claim
We reject KG's challenge as to the advisory committee on
standing grounds. KG's complaint does not plead any facts as to
-27-
why it has standing to challenge the committee's composition. Its
sole argument is that Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (per
curiam), holds that an individual subject to the jurisdiction of a
regulatory agency may challenge the legality of appointments to
that body. Buckley was not so broad; rather it held that "[p]arty
litigants with sufficient concrete interests at stake may have
standing to raise constitutional questions of separation of powers
with respect to an agency designated to adjudicate their rights."
Id. at 117 (emphasis added). KG bears the burden and does not
develop any argument that it has sufficently concrete interests at
stake as to the advisory committee, or that Buckley applies to
committees that are solely advisory. The contours of Buckley's
standing analysis are not well-defined, and at least one circuit
has held that Buckley does not confer standing on plaintiffs who
are not "directly subject to the governmental authority they seek
to challenge, but merely assert that they are substantially
affected by the exercise of that authority." Comm. for Monetary
Reform v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 766 F.2d 538,
543 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The dismissal of this claim for lack of
standing is affirmed. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.
555, 561 (1992).
B. State Declaration of Rights Claim
KG newly argues that it is entitled to greater protection
under the state constitution than the federal. Before the district
-28-
court, KG initially argued that the standard for equal protection
analysis was the same under the federal constitution and under the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. KG later submitted a
supplemental filing regarding Finch v. Commonwealth Health
Insurance Connector Authority, 959 N.E.2d 970 (Mass. 2012), arguing
that the decision "further demonstrates that the Act violates the
Equal Protection Clause and Declaration of Rights."
While that opinion was issued after KG's motion for a
preliminary injunction was filed, the legal principle for which KG
cites the case was decided by the Supreme Judicial Court in an
earlier opinion in the same case, before KG's motion was filed.
See Finch v. Commonwealth Health Ins. Connector Auth., 946 N.E.2d
1262, 1276 (Mass. 2011) ("Where the Federal government has made a
binding decision regarding the treatment of aliens, that decision
will be reviewed according to the standards applicable to the
Federal government even though the immediate actor may be a State
government. In comparison, where the State acts on its own
authority, it cannot shelter behind the existence of Congress's
plenary authority, and its actions are subject to strict scrutiny
review." (citation omitted)).
KG's failure to timely raise the argument that a
different standard applies to its state-law claim leads to the
conclusion that the state constitutional claim adds nothing to KG's
claim in this court. See Nat'l Amusements, Inc. v. Town of Dedham,
-29-
43 F.3d 731, 748-49 (1st Cir. 1995) (holding that where a party
treats federal and state constitutional provisions "identically"
before the district court, the party has waived any argument that
the provisions are distinct). We affirm dismissal of the state-law
claim without prejudice, particularly because "the claim raises a
novel or complex issue of State law." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).
C. The Equal Protection Challenge to § 91
We turn now to the heart of KG's suit, the equal
protection challenge to § 91.
We review de novo, Doe v. Bush, 323 F.3d 133, 138 (1st
Cir. 2003), and reject the defendants' argument that the challenge
is not ripe.12 The equal protection challenge to § 91 is a legal
question that is fit for judicial review. The fact that the case
could be rendered moot -- for example, if the state Commission
determines that land will not be taken into trust -- does not
render the case unripe. Moreover, we have previously rejected a
claim that the contingent nature of the tribal-state compacting
process renders a suit unripe. Rhode Island v. Narrangansett
Indian Tribe, 19 F.3d 685, 693-94 (1st Cir. 1994).13
12
After the Mashpee Tribal-State Compact was approved by the
Massachusetts legislature, the defendants withdrew their ripeness
objection.
13
KG satisfies the minimum requirements of Article III
standing necessary to raise its equal protection challenge to § 91.
See Ne. Fla. Chapter of the Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v.
City of Jacksonville, Fla., 508 U.S. 656, 666 (1993) ("When the
government erects a barrier that makes it more difficult for
-30-
Turning to the merits, the parties essentially agree that
the level of scrutiny that applies to § 91 is dispositive of the
equal protection claim.14 KG argues that § 91 constitutes a race-
based preference, insofar as § 91 allows for Indian tribes who do
not possess Indian lands, and so do not meet the IGRA's
requirements, to negotiate a tribal-state compact and, if
successful, preclude a competitive license from being awarded to
members of one group to obtain a benefit than it is for members of
another group, a member of the former group seeking to challenge
the barrier need not allege that he would have obtained the benefit
but for the barrier in order to establish standing. The 'injury in
fact' in an equal protection case of this variety is the denial of
equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier, not
the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit.").
14
KG does suggest that even if § 91 is subject to rational
basis review, there is nothing that warrants Region C being treated
differently from the other regions, and so § 91 fails even under
rational basis review. One aspect of this argument fails, as the
legislature could have rationally concluded that the southeast
portion of the state is the part of the state in which a federally
recognized tribe would be most likely to acquire Indian lands,
particularly given that the Aquinnah presently possess certain land
in that region and the Mashpee have previously applied to have land
in that region taken into trust. See 73 Fed. Reg. 12,204 (Mar. 6,
2008).
This does not address or foreclose KG's remaining arguments
that the differentiation of Region C from the other two regions
rests expressly on the tribal preference and if that preference
fails, then the differentiation must fail. Since the state
legislature has tied the differentiation solely to the tribal
preference, this is not an instance in which a state has merely
decided to treat its regions separately. See Montalvo-Huertas v.
Rivera-Cruz, 885 F.2d 971, 981 (1st Cir. 1989) (explaining that
"territorial uniformity is not a constitutional prerequisite" under
the Equal Protection Clause (quoting McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S.
420, 427 (1961)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
-31-
non-tribal applicants in Region C, at least until the Secretary of
the Interior decides against the tribe's application.
The defendants respond with two arguments, which
basically state all-or-nothing propositions. First, defendants
broadly claim that, under Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974),
the state's classification based on tribal status is political, not
racial, in nature, and so subject only to rational basis review.
Second, defendants argue, more narrowly, that, under Washington v.
Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S.
463 (1979), even if the classification were racial in nature, it is
authorized by the IGRA and thus subject only to rational basis
review.
The defendants have not offered a middle ground nor have
they formally argued that a state may choose to allow at least a
limited grace period to tribes to attempt to obtain needed
approvals under the IGRA from the Secretary (and Congress, if
needed), though that is self-evidently one purpose of § 91.15
There are difficulties with each party's arguments. In
the end, though, it is clear to us that KG's suit should not have
been dismissed, and that KG is not entitled at this point to the
equitable relief it seeks. For reasons discussed below, we affirm
15
The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has
stated that "[w]e'll give the tribe whatever the appropriate amount
of time is to get that decision made," and would "let the tribe
have their fair shot to get the land in trust." Brenann, Patrick
Expects Casino Deal Next Week, Cape Cod Times, June 13, 2012.
-32-
the denial of a grant of relief as an appropriate exercise of the
discretion as to whether to issue both a preliminary injunction and
a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). We first outline
the legal issues raised as to the equal protection claim.
1. The Equal Protection Clause and State-Law
Classifications Based on Tribal Status
a. Morton v. Mancari
The defendants' first argument is that a state-granted
preference to a tribe is not a racial preference and so entails
only rational basis review. This argument relies on language used
by the Court in Mancari, 417 U.S. 535. There, the Court addressed
whether a federal law granting an employment preference for
qualified Indians in a federal agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), violated the equal protection component of the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 417 U.S. at 537. A statute
directed the Secretary of the Interior to adopt standards "for
Indians who may be appointed, without regard to civil-service laws,
to the various positions maintained, now or hereafter, by the
Indian office, in the administration of functions or services
affecting any Indian tribe. Such qualified Indians shall hereafter
have the preference to appointment to vacancies in any such
positions." Id. at 537-38 (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 472) (internal
quotation mark omitted). The BIA adopted a policy that "[w]here
two or more candidates who meet the established qualification
requirements are available for filling a vacancy. If one of them
-33-
is an Indian, he shall be given preference in filling the vacancy."
Id. at 538 n.3.
The Court rejected the equal protection challenge to the
federal statute. The Court first noted that "[t]he plenary power
of Congress to deal with the special problems of Indians is drawn
both explicitly and implicitly from the Constitution itself,"
citing the portion of the Commerce Clause allowing regulation of
commerce "with the Indian tribes," as well as the treaty power.
Id. at 551-52 (citing U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3). The Court
then noted that there was a "special relationship" between the
federal government and Indian tribes, and that "[l]iterally every
piece of legislation dealing with Indian tribes and reservations
. . . single[s] out for special treatment a constituency of tribal
Indians living on or near reservations." Id. at 552. It was "in
this historical and legal context" that the Court addressed the
equal protection claim. Id. at 553.
The Court held that "this preference does not constitute
'racial discrimination.' Indeed, it is not even a 'racial'
preference. Rather, it is an employment criterion reasonably
designed to further the cause of Indian self-government and to make
the BIA more responsive to the needs of its constituent groups."
Id. at 553-54 (footnote omitted). The Court further explained:
The preference, as applied, is granted to
Indians not as a discrete racial group, but,
rather, as members of quasi-sovereign tribal
entities whose lives and activities are
-34-
governed by the BIA in a unique fashion. In
the sense that there is no other group of
people favored in this manner, the legal
status of the BIA is truly sui generis.
Id. at 554 (citation and footnote omitted). This passage was
followed by rather pointed language that if the preference were
applied to employment in federal agencies not related to Indians,
a different question would be presented:
Furthermore, the preference applies only to
employment in the Indian service. The
preference does not cover any other Government
agency or activity, and we need not consider
the obviously more difficult question that
would be presented by a blanket exemption for
Indians from all civil service examinations.
Here, the preference is reasonably and
directly related to a legitimate, nonracially
based goal. This is the principal
characteristic that generally is absent from
proscribed forms of racial discrimination.
Id. at 554.
In a footnote, the Court remarked: "The preference is not
directed towards a 'racial' group consisting of 'Indians'; instead,
it applies only to members of 'federally recognized' tribes. This
operates to exclude many individuals who are racially to be
classified as 'Indians.' In this sense, the preference is
political rather than racial in nature." Id. at 553 n.24. The
Commonwealth relies on but overreads the footnote.
The Court concluded by explaining that "[a]s long as the
special treatment can be tied rationally to the fulfillment of
Congress' unique obligation toward the Indians, such legislative
-35-
judgments will not be disturbed," and that this standard was
satisfied. Id. at 555.
Mancari's analysis as to federal laws giving preference
based on "Congress' unique obligation toward the Indians" has been
reaffirmed. See, e.g., Washington v. Wash. State Commercial
Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658, 673 n.20 (1979)
(noting that "this Court . . . has repeatedly held that the
peculiar semisovereign and constitutionally recognized status of
Indians justifies special treatment on their behalf when rationally
related to the Government's 'unique obligation toward the Indians'"
(quoting Mancari, 417 U.S. at 555)); United States v. Antelope, 430
U.S. 641, 645 (1977) ("Legislation with respect to these 'unique
aggregations' has repeatedly been sustained by this Court against
claims of unlawful racial discrimination." (citing Mancari, 417
U.S. at 552)); see also Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, 692 (1990)
("That Indians are citizens does not alter the Federal Government's
broad authority to legislate with respect to enrolled Indians as a
class, whether to impose burdens or benefits." (citing Antelope and
Mancari)), superseded by statute as recognized in United States v.
Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 197-98, 207 (2004).
However, it is quite doubtful that Mancari's language can
be extended to apply to preferential state classifications based on
tribal status. Mancari itself relied on several sources of federal
authority to reach its holding, including the portion of the
-36-
Commerce Clause relating to Indian tribes, the treaty power, and
the special trust relationship between Indian tribes and the
federal government. 417 U.S. at 552-53.
The states have no such equivalent authority,16 which is
ceded by the Constitution to the federal government. Further, the
state preference here has to do with establishment of gaming
facilities and not employment of Indians within agencies whose
mission is to assist Indians. Moreover, Mancari itself said that
a different question would be presented by a preference in all
civil services positions, and suggested that might be viewed as
race based discrimination.
KG argues that the state's argument that no racial
classification is involved is undercut by Rice v. Cayetano, 528
U.S. 495 (2000). In Rice, a case under the Fifteenth Amendment,
the Court declined to "extend the limited exception of Mancari to
a new and larger dimension," id. at 520, and rejected the state of
Hawaii's claim that Mancari applied to allow a voting scheme the
state established regarding the Office of Hawaiian affairs, id. at
522. The voting scheme permitted only "Hawaiians," defined as "any
16
Indeed, the state's broad reading of Mancari is
inconsistent with the Court's later decision in Washington v.
Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S.
463 (1979). We discuss Yakima below, and cite it now for its
holding that "[s]tates do not enjoy this same unique relationship
with Indians" which "permits the Federal Government to enact
legislation singling out tribal Indians, legislation that might
otherwise be constitutionally offensive." Id. at 501.
-37-
descendant of the aboriginal peoples inhabiting the Hawaiian
Islands which exercised sovereignty and subsisted in the Hawaiian
Islands in 1778," to vote for the trustees of the Office. Id. at
509 (quoting Haw. Rev. Stat. § 10-2). The Court held this special
favorable treatment of Hawaiians was an impermissible racial
classification. Id. at 517-22. The Court also held that
"[a]ncestry can be a proxy for race," and was so in the context of
the statute at issue there. Id. at 514. The effect of Rice on a
Fourteenth Amendment claim involving federally recognized tribes is
unclear.
The defendants cite no authority holding that state
preferential classifications based on tribal status which are not
authorized by federal law are nonetheless not racial
classifications under Mancari. Instead, they cite a number of
cases upholding state laws, which are not like this case, said to
be authorized by federal law under the rationale of Yakima. See
Artichoke Joe's Cal. Grand Casino v. Norton, 353 F.3d 712, 736 (9th
Cir. 2003) (upholding state law regarding Indian gaming enacted
pursuant to the IGRA); United States v. Garrett, 122 F. App'x 628,
631-33 (4th Cir. 2005) (same, following Artichoke Joe's); Squaxin
Island Tribe v. Washington, 781 F.2d 715, 722 n.10 (9th Cir. 1986)
(upholding state law where "the state is acting under a federal
statute explicitly adjusting the state's jurisdiction over
Indians"); Greene v. Comm'r of Minn. Dep't of Human Servs., 755
-38-
N.W.2d 713, 727 (Minn. 2008) (upholding state law where the law was
"a direct response" to a federal law, citing Yakima); N.Y. Ass'n of
Convenience Stores v. Urbach, 699 N.E.2d 904, 908 (N.Y. 1998)
(upholding state law on the rationale of Yakima).
We turn next to the defendants' argument that
nevertheless the state may still make the classification, because
§ 91 is authorized by the IGRA under Yakima. In the present
posture of this case, that too is quite doubtful.
b. Yakima
The premise of defendants' argument is their assertion
that § 91 was "enacted under explicit authority granted by Congress
in IGRA," and so is subject to rational basis review under Yakima.
While stronger than the Mancari rationale, and the "authorization"
rationale states a sound argument where it applies, it is
questionable whether the IGRA "authorizes" the state's actions on
the present facts. Indeed, KG in effect argues that as the Supreme
Court has interpreted the land in trust statute in Carcieri, the
intent of Congress was that the Secretary could not take land into
trust for tribes such as the Mashpee, and so the intent of Congress
is on the other side of the issue.
In Yakima, the Court addressed the equal protection
analysis of state laws as to Indian tribes where the state acted
pursuant to Congressional authorization. The State of Washington,
-39-
pursuant to authorization granted by federal Public Law 280,17
enacted Chapter 36, extending the state's exercise of jurisdiction
onto the Yakima Reservation in certain instances. 439 U.S. at
465-66. The Yakima Nation brought suit raising, among other
claims, one of an equal protection violation. Id. at 466-67. The
Court rejected the claim. The Court first found that the state law
"violates neither the procedural nor the substantive terms of"
Public Law 280, and so the state was authorized by Congress under
that law to extend jurisdiction over the reservation. Id. at 499.
The Court then addressed the equal protection claim. The Court
rejected the argument that this was a racial classification giving
rise to heightened scrutiny, explaining, in the opinion's key
passage:
It is settled that "the unique legal status of
Indian tribes under federal law" permits the
Federal Government to enact legislation
singling out tribal Indians, legislation that
might otherwise be constitutionally offensive.
Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551-552.
States do not enjoy this same unique
relationship with Indians, but Chapter 36 is
not simply another state law. It was enacted
in response to a federal measure explicitly
designed to readjust the allocation of
jurisdiction over Indians. The jurisdiction
permitted under Chapter 36 is, as we have
found, within the scope of the authorization
of Pub. L. 280. And many of the
classifications made by Chapter 36 are also
made by Pub. L. 280. Indeed, classifications
based on tribal status and land tenure inhere
in many of the decisions of this Court
17
Act of Aug. 15, 1953, ch. 505, 67 Stat. 588.
-40-
involving jurisdictional controversies between
tribal Indians and the States, see, e. g.,
United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621. For
these reasons, we find the argument that such
classifications are "suspect" an untenable
one. The contention that Chapter 36 abridges
a "fundamental right" is also untenable. It
is well established that Congress, in the
exercise of its plenary power over Indian
affairs, may restrict the retained sovereign
powers of the Indian tribes. See, e. g.,
United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313. In
enacting Chapter 36, Washington was
legislating under explicit authority granted
by Congress in the exercise of that federal
power.
Id. at 500-01. This portion of Yakima has not been addressed by
the Court since Yakima was decided.
It would be difficult to conclude that the IGRA
"authorizes" the Massachusetts statute under these circumstances --
where there are no Indian lands in Region C at present within the
meaning of the IGRA. Further, Carcieri may in the end prohibit the
Secretary from taking the Mashpee lands into trust and so making
them Indian lands, a question not yet resolved.
KG does not dispute that if a federally recognized tribe
in Massachusetts currently possessed "Indian lands" within the
meaning of the IGRA,18 § 91 would fall sufficiently within the scope
18
As said, the IGRA defines "Indian lands" as (1) "lands
within any Indian reservation" and (2) "lands title to which is
either held in trust by the United States for the benefit of any
Indian tribe or held by any Indian tribe or individual subject to
jurisdiction by the United States against alienation and over which
an Indian tribe exercises governmental power." 25 U.S.C.
§ 2703(4). Neither party addresses the meaning of the "or held by
any Indian tribe" portion of the statute or its relevance to this
-41-
of the IGRA's authorization and thus be subject to only rational
basis review. Two circuits have reached this conclusion as to
other states' Indian gaming laws. See Garrett, 122 F. App'x at
631-32; Artichoke Joe's, 353 F.3d at 736.19
KG argues with some force that the fact that a tribe may,
in the future, acquire Indian lands is insufficient for § 91 to be
considered "authorized" in the Yakima sense by the IGRA. Instead,
KG argues, a tribe20 must currently possess Indian lands in order
for § 91 in any relevant sense to be authorized by Congress.
We outline the present state of affairs as we understand
it. The Mashpee have submitted a land in trust application to the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, requesting that the Bureau take land into
trust for purposes of operating a casino in Massachusetts. See 77
Fed. Reg. 32,132, 32,133 (May 31, 2012) (BIA notice requesting
comments for purposes of preparing an environmental impact
statement for the proposed transfer into trust of 146.39 acres in
the City of Taunton, to be taken into trust "for the development of
a casino, hotel, parking, and other facilities supporting the
casino," as well as a proposed transfer into trust of 170.1 acres
case, and we do not pass on it here.
19
The Ninth Circuit expressly reserved the question of
"whether lands that are purchased specifically for the purpose of
conducting class III gaming activities are 'Indian lands' within
the meaning of IGRA." Artichoke Joe's Cal. Grand Casino v. Norton,
353 F.3d 712, 735 n.16 (9th Cir. 2003).
20
Again, we distinguish the Aquinnah for the reasons stated.
-42-
in the Town of Mashpee, Massachusetts, for other purposes). The
agreed-on tribal-state compact has yet to be approved by the
Secretary of the Interior, and the compact acknowledges that the
Mashpee currently possess no land in trust. The Governor agreed in
the compact to "support the Tribe's" land in trust application.
Mashpee Tribal-State Compact §§ 2.11, 9.1.6.
The strongest argument made by KG is based on Carcieri:
that even if being in the application process to have a Secretary
(with authority) take the purchased land into trust might suffice
for purposes of being found authorized under the IGRA as a general
matter, if no land can be taken into trust given Carcieri, § 91
cannot be viewed as authorized by the IGRA. KG's argument starts
from the premise that the Mashpee were federally recognized only
after 1934.21 That being so, KG argues, unless the tribe can
demonstrate that it was "under federal jurisdiction" in 1934 (in
the view of three Justices),22 or Congress positively grants the
21
See Final Determination for Federal Acknowledgment of the
Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc. of Massachusetts, 72
Fed. Reg. 8,007 (Feb. 22, 2007) (finding that the Mashpee meet the
criteria for federal acknowledgment under 25 C.F.R. § 83.7).
22
The Department of the Interior has, post-Carcieri, approved
a land in trust application for a tribe recognized after 1934,
largely relying on the Carcieri concurring opinion. See U.S. Dep't
of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Trust Acquisition of, and
Reservation Proclamation for the 151.87-acre Cowlitz Parcel in
Clark County, Washington, for the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (Dec. 17,
2010), available at http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/mywcsp/
documents/text/idc012719.pdf. It was also based on facts which may
be unique to the Cowlitz tribe, or at least not shared by the
Mashpee. There is no evidence one way or the other as to any such
-43-
Secretary new authority to take land into trust for post-1934
tribes, no land could be taken into trust given Carcieri.
Moreover, it would be inconsistent with Congressional intent to
view the IGRA, which permits gaming only on Indian lands, to
authorize negotiation of a tribal-state compact where a tribe
neither possessed such lands nor could acquire such lands in the
absence of Congressional legislation. We have not been given the
benefit of any view by the Secretary on any of these issues.
Further, the Mashpee's land in trust application has not been
placed in the record, so we do not know the predicate for the
tribe's application.
KG's argument that the IGRA cannot "authorize" § 91 in
these circumstances rests not only on Carcieri but also on the
language of the IGRA, which repeatedly uses the term "Indian lands"
in explaining when Class III gaming is permitted. In particular,
the term is used in the context of explaining when tribes and
states may negotiate a tribal-state compact:
(A) Any Indian tribe having jurisdiction over
the Indian lands upon which a class III gaming
activity is being conducted, or is to be
conducted, shall request the State in which
such lands are located to enter into
negotiations for the purpose of entering into
a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct
of gaming activities. Upon receiving such a
facts as to the Mashpee. This determination has been challenged,
including as to whether the Secretary had authority to take land
into trust given Carcieri. See Clark County, Wash. v. U.S. Dep't
of Interior, No. 11-00284 (D.D.C. filed Jan. 31, 2011).
-44-
request, the State shall negotiate with the
Indian tribe in good faith to enter into such
a compact.
(B) Any State and any Indian tribe may enter
into a Tribal-State compact governing gaming
activities on the Indian lands of the Indian
tribe, but such compact shall take effect only
when notice of approval by the Secretary of
such compact has been published by the
Secretary in the Federal Register.
25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3) (emphasis added). KG argues, as a matter of
federal statutory interpretation, that the IGRA precludes a finding
of authorization here.
The Sixth Circuit has interpreted subsection (A) in
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Engler, 304
F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2002). There, the court addressed whether an
Indian tribe which did not possess Indian lands could compel a
state to negotiate a tribal-state compact. The court held that the
tribe could not do so, as "[h]aving jurisdiction over land for the
casino is a condition precedent to negotiations and federal
jurisdiction," based on the "plain language of § 2710(d)(3)(A)."
Id. at 618. The court explained that "[s]ection (3)(A) describes
not just an Indian tribe, but one that is in possession of land."
Id. Of course, there is a distinction: there the tribe was trying
to force the state to negotiate; here the state wishes to
negotiate.23
23
The Mashpee Tribal-State Compact states that "[t]he parties
agree that IGRA negotiations need not be commenced or concluded
until the Tribe has land in trust that is qualified for Gaming."
-45-
KG's argument based on Carcieri goes beyond the language
of the IGRA describing when a compact may be negotiated to a more
basic premise of the IGRA: that Class III gaming may occur only on
Indian lands. Because the Secretary presently most likely lacks
authority under the IGRA to take land into trust for the Mashpee,
KG argues, there is no real prospect, absent an act of Congress,
for land to be taken into trust, and so § 91 cannot be viewed as
authorized.
The defendants' response to this reading of the statute
relies not upon the terms of the statute, but on certain actions
taken by the Secretary, albeit in factual situations not identical
to this. The Secretary's present position appears to be that
tribal-state compacts may be negotiated and approved by the
Secretary even if a tribe does not currently possess Indian lands,
conditional upon the tribe's acquiring Indian lands. The most
recent position of the Secretary, cited by the parties, was
articulated in a March 2011 approval of a tribal-state compact.
There, the Secretary approved a tribal-state compact, with the
authorization of any gaming facility under the compact contingent
on the relevant land being "acquired in trust by the Secretary for
the tribe."24 76 Fed. Reg. 11,258, 11,258 (Mar. 1, 2011). Whether
Mashpee Tribal-State Compact § 9.1.2.
24
Neither party addresses whether the tribe whose compact was
approved, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation,
was under federal jurisdiction in 1934 and so Carcieri would not
-46-
or not the Secretary's interpretation of the statute is correct or
would apply to the Mashpee has not been briefed and is not before
us.
The Secretary's views on whether tribal-state compacts
may be approved before the tribe possesses land that is taken into
trust have varied over the years.25 In 2005, the Secretary
disapproved a tribal-state compact between the State of Oregon and
the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon,
on the basis that it could only approve a tribal-state compact
"governing gaming on Indian lands of such Indian tribe." 25 U.S.C.
§ 2710(d)(8)(A) (emphasis added). The Department's reading was
that "[t]his section does not authorize the Secretary to approve a
compact for the conduct of Class III gaming activities on lands
that are not now, and may never be, Indian lands of such Indian
tribe." Because the land was not in trust, approval of the compact
would run afoul of § 2710(d)(8)(A). The Secretary did note that
the Department had "previously approved compacts for the regulation
pose a barrier to the taking of land into trust, in contrast to
this situation.
25
In 2010, the director of the Office of Indian Gaming in the
Department of the Interior sent a letter to a member of the
Michigan House of Representatives, which explained that the IGRA
"does not authorize the Secretary to approve a compact for the
conduct of Class III gaming on lands that are not now, and may
never be, Indian lands of such Indian tribe. Thus if a compact is
'site specific' and identifies land that is not now or may never be
Indian lands in accordance with IGRA and the tribe has not
identified land that is eligible for gaming in the compact the
compact may be disapproved."
-47-
of class III gaming activities before the specified lands qualified
as Indian lands under IGRA," but upon further review of the
statute, the Secretary changed his position. See also Second
Discussion Draft of Legislation Regarding Off-Reservation Indian
Gaming: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Res., 109th Cong. 16 (2005)
(statement of Ron Suppah, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of Warm
Springs, Or.) (discussing this 2005 compact and explaining that
"Interior has previously approved several compacts before the land
was in trust, but four days before our 45-day review ended Interior
announced to us with no forewarning that they were changing their
policy and would require the Cascade Locks' lands to be in trust
before they would consider our compact").
The Secretary has promulgated regulations governing the
procedures for submitting a tribal-state compact, see 25 C.F.R. pt.
293, but these regulations do not address the matter before us.26
The Secretary has also promulgated regulations regarding the
procedures for acquiring the Secretary's approval to conduct gaming
26
One of the comments received when the regulations were
proposed was that the Department should clarify its position on
"Indian lands," and another suggested removal of the phrase "on the
tribe's Indian lands located within the State" from the definition
of a tribal-state compact. 73 Fed. Reg. 74,004, 70,004-05 (Dec. 5,
2008). In response to the former comment, the Department stated
that "[t]his regulation addresses the process for submission by
tribes and States and consideration by the Secretary of Class III
Tribal-State Gaming Compacts, and is not intended to address
substantive issues." Id. In response to the latter comment, the
Department removed the phrase "on the Tribe's Indian lands" from
the definition of a Tribal-State compact under these procedural
regulations. Id. at 70,005.
-48-
on lands acquired in trust after October 1988 under 25 U.S.C.
§ 2719(b)(1)(A). These regulations permit tribes to apply for the
Secretary's determination "for lands not yet held in trust at the
same time that [the tribe] applies . . . to have the land taken
into trust." 25 C.F.R. § 292.15.
In sum, whether § 91 is "authorized" by the IGRA such
that it falls within Yakima and is subject to only rational basis
review is far from clear, presents a difficult question of
statutory interpretation, and implicates a practice of the
Secretary of the Interior not challenged in this suit. There is
apparently no judicial authority addressing the question of whether
a state may negotiate a tribal-state compact with a federally
recognized tribe that does not presently possess Indian lands.27
The Secretary's present position does, though, provide
some assistance to the Commonwealth. If the Secretary is willing
27
The Ninth Circuit has addressed the separate question of
whether the NIGC chairman must affirmatively determine that any
Class III gaming is to take place on Indian lands before approving
a tribal ordinance authorizing gaming. The Ninth Circuit did not
decide whether, if a tribal ordinance specifies a particular site
on which gaming is to be conducted (i.e. is a site-specific
ordinance), such a determination must take place. N. Cnty. Cmty.
Alliance, Inc. v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 738, 746 (9th Cir. 2009), cert.
denied, 130 S. Ct. 2095 (2010). It held that where an ordinance
does not specify where gaming will take place (and there need be no
such specification; i.e. the ordinance may be non-site-specific),
no such determination need be made. Id. at 746-47. Regulations
promulgated by the NIGC in 2008 now appear to require that, while
non-site-specific ordinances may still be approved, in an
application for a facility license from the NIGC, the tribe must
submit information to enable the NIGC to make an Indian lands
determination. See id. at 747-48 (citing 25 C.F.R. § 559.2(a)).
-49-
under the IGRA to approve a tribal-state compact contingent on the
relevant land being later acquired in trust, then the Commonwealth
can argue that § 91 establishes a parallel mechanism, meant to
facilitate the purposes of the IGRA, even if not precisely
authorized by the IGRA, for a limited period of time.
The argument, of course, would become weaker with the
passage of time and the continuation of the status that there are
no "Indian lands" in the region. The tribal-state compact entered
into weakens the state's position by extending the period of time,
as we explain below. And the argument is qualitatively different,
and even weaker, to the extent that Congressional action is
required to provide the Secretary authority to take this land into
trust. It is in this context that we turn to the relief requested
by KG and the disposition of this suit.
2. KG's Requested Relief
In this suit, KG requests only equitable relief: a
declaration that § 91 of the Massachusetts Gaming Act violates the
Equal Protection Clause, preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief, and associated attorneys' fees. We view the appropriate
resolution of this appeal through the lens of KG's request for
equitable relief.
We start with KG's request for a preliminary injunction.
Four factors govern the issuance of preliminary injunctive relief:
(1) the likelihood that the party requesting
the injunction will succeed on the merits of
-50-
its claim or claims; (2) the potential for
irreparable harm to this party if the
injunction is denied; (3) the balance of the
relative hardships that will ensue following
either a grant or denial; and (4) the effect
(if any) that the grant or denial will have on
the public interest.
González-Fuentes v. Molina, 607 F.3d 864, 875 (1st Cir. 2010),
cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1568 (2011). In this case, several
circumstances weigh strongly against granting injunctive relief at
this point in time.
As to likelihood of success on the merits, the law is far
from clear, and both sides have weaknesses in their positions, as
we have just outlined. That factor is only one of four we
consider. First, it is clear from the affidavit of the Chairman of
the Gaming Commission that the Commission is not now soliciting
applications for the other two regions, will not do so until
October 2012 at the earliest, and may not do so until some point in
2013. As a result, the nature of KG's present injury is relatively
limited. For reasons other than § 91, the category 1 licensing
process may not move forward in Region C for months to come.
Second, the shape of the issues raised in this suit, and
the attendant claims of injury, could well change depending on
future events. It has already changed since oral argument, with
the approval of the compact.
What is more difficult is the indefiniteness of when the
Gaming Commission may, after August 1, 2012, determine that the
-51-
tribe will not have land taken into trust, which would then trigger
the competitive license application process. The statute does not
set a date for this determination, instead providing only that "if,
at any time on or after August 1, 2012, the commission determines
that the tribe will not have land taken into trust by the United
States Secretary of the Interior, the commission shall consider
bids for a category 1 license in Region C under said chapter 23K."
2011 Mass. Acts ch. 194, § 91(e). At oral argument, the defendants
provided two "examples" of when this determination would
"presumably" take place: (1) if the Secretary of the Interior
disapproves the tribal-state compact or (2) if the Secretary denies
the Mashpee's pending land in trust application.28 The defendants
stated that beyond those circumstances, the Commission would have
to exercise its own authority in deciding whether to consider bids,
but gave no suggestion as to when the Commission may do so.
There are two provisions in the Mashpee Tribal-State
Compact that raise the prospect of further delays and cast doubt on
28
Neither of these events appears to be associated with a
fixed time limit under the IGRA and the land in trust statute. The
approval or disapproval of a tribal-state compact must take place
within "45 days after the date on which the compact is submitted to
the Secretary for approval," 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8)(C), but there
is no explicit requirement as to when a compact must be submitted
after it has been agreed on by the state and the tribe, see 25
C.F.R. § 293.7 (providing that "[t]he Indian tribe or State should
submit the compact or amendment after it has been legally entered
into by both parties"). As to the land in trust process, the
relevant regulations provide only that "[t]he Secretary shall
review all requests and shall promptly notify the applicant in
writing of his decision." Id. § 151.12(a).
-52-
the two "examples" provided at oral argument. First, the compact
provides that "if the United States Secretary of the Interior fails
to accept such land in trust" as to the current land in trust
application, "the Tribe may identify alternative land in Region C
to be acquired in trust for Gaming under this Compact," and so
presumably begin the land in trust process anew. Mashpee Tribal-
State Compact § 5.2.2. This raises the prospect of multiple land
in trust applications and further delay as to when the Commission
might determine that the Mashpee will not have land taken into
trust under § 91(e).
Second, the compact provides that if it "is not approved
by the United States Secretary of the Interior as required by IGRA,
the Governor agrees that, if requested by the Tribe, the Governor
will immediately resume negotiations in good faith with the Tribe
for an amended compact." Mashpee Tribal-State Compact § 18.8.
This raises the prospect that even the Secretary's disapproval of
the compact will not trigger a Commission decision to commence the
competitive licensing process.
There also remains the potential that the Commission
might wait years until the Secretary makes a determination as to
the compact or land in trust application before itself acting under
§ 91.29 And the Mashpee Tribal-State Compact provides that it shall
29
The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has
recently stated that "[w]e'll give the tribe whatever the
appropriate amount of time is to get that decision made," and would
"let the tribe have their fair shot to get the land in trust."
-53-
not "prevent the Tribe from challenging in a court of competent
jurisdiction any such determination by the" Commission. Mashpee
Tribal-State Compact § 21.10. This compact clause raises the
prospect of a lengthy delay before a conclusive decision is made as
to whether the commercial licensing process will go forward in
Region C.
The Supreme Court recently took notice of the length of
time involved in reaching a decision on a land in trust
application. Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians,
132 S. Ct. at 2203 (noting the "lengthy administrative review" of
a request to have land taken into trust for purposes of operating
a casino). Even if the lands were taken into trust by the
Secretary, there could be further delays from litigation over the
Secretary's decision. The Court held that sovereign immunity does
not bar suits under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging
the Secretary's taking of land into trust, and that a nearby
property owner satisfied the requirements of prudential standing to
bring such a challenge. Id. at 2209-12. Moreover, the Court's
opinion appears to suggest that a nearby property owner had
standing to raise a challenge based on Carcieri to a land in trust
determination. Id. at 2203-04.
Beyond any such more typical delays in the land in trust
application and compact approval processes, there is also the issue
Brenann, Patrick Expects Casino Deal Next Week, Cape Cod Times,
June 13, 2012.
-54-
of whether the Secretary of the Interior has the authority take
land into trust for the Mashpee in the wake of Carcieri. If the
Secretary lacks such authority, that would require Congressional
action before land could be taken into trust. This adds yet
another layer of uncertainty and potential delay. If such lengthy
delays occurred, this would undercut the argument that § 91 is
meant as a temporary accommodation to the IGRA process to allow
lands to be taken into trust and so is "authorized" in that minimal
sense.
Given this situation, the lack of clear answers on
questions of both state and federal law, the shifting of the nature
of the injury to KG, and the apparent attempt to allow some time
for the IGRA process to work (including any Carcieri fix), we
cannot say there was an abuse of discretion in the denial of
preliminary injunctive relief. "An injunction is an exercise of a
court's equitable authority, to be ordered only after taking into
account all of the circumstances that bear on the need for
prospective relief." Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803, 1816
(2010). "Equitable relief is not granted as a matter of course,
and a court should be particularly cautious when contemplating
relief that implicates public interests." Id. (citations omitted).
These considerations also lead us to affirm the denial of
KG's request for injunctive and declaratory relief at this point in
time. The Supreme Court has made clear that "the Declaratory
Judgment Act has been understood to confer on federal courts unique
-55-
and substantial discretion in deciding whether to declare the
rights of litigants. On its face, the statute provides that a
court 'may declare the rights and other legal relations of any
interested party seeking such declaration.'" Wilton v. Seven Falls
Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286 (1995) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a)). The
Court has explained that "the propriety of declaratory relief in a
particular case will depend upon a circumspect sense of its fitness
informed by the teachings and experience concerning the functions
and extent of federal judicial power." Id. at 287 (quoting Pub.
Serv. Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237, 243 (1952))
(internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court's dismissal of the complaint is
another matter. We simply cannot say that KG's equal protection
claim as to § 91 fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or that the issuance of equitable relief may not be
appropriate at some future date.
We also affirm the dismissal with prejudice of KG's
claims as to the $5 million appropriation, the advisory committee
seat, and the preemption challenge to § 91. We dismiss KG's state-
law claims without prejudice. We remand the case for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
No costs are awarded.
-56-