Judge rules Seneca Nation owes New York $255m in back payments
Tribe cited letter from Department of Interior in attempt to block 2019 ruling
A US District Court judge ruled on December 14 that the Seneca Nation is responsible for $255m in revenue-sharing payments to the state of New York dating back to the automatic renewal of a tribal gaming compact in 2016.
The Tribe, which operates three upstate casinos, had attempted to block a 2019 ruling stating it owed the back payments after the expiration of a 14-year tribal gaming compact in 2016.
The Seneca Nation’s claim was that following the automatic renewal of the compact, the payments could violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) on account of the Department of Interior (DOI) not explicitly authorizing their continuation.
The Tribe cited a letter it had received from the DOI in April as a means of substantiating its attempt to block the ruling. In the letter, the director of the DOI’s Office of Indian Gaming outlined “serious concerns” about the continuation of revenue-sharing payments given that the agency hadn’t analyzed the extension of the compact, concluding the payments could represent an IGRA violation.
The Seneca Nation included the crux of the DOI letter as part of its motion for relief, claiming it was sufficient to raise doubts about the legality of the payments, which the Tribe had halted after the expiration of the compact in 2016. An arbitration panel subsequently determined the Tribe owed two years of back payments under the automatically-renewed compact.
In his decision on December 14, US District Judge William M. Skretny affirmed the arbitration ruling, asserting that the Tribe’s position was effectively moot given that the arbitration panel had already “interpreted the compact to require the continuation of revenue-sharing payments during the renewal period.”
“Essentially, the majority found that the compact directly linked revenue-sharing payments to exclusivity, making the payments due and owing during all periods of exclusivity provided by the state, including during the renewal period,” Judge Skretny wrote.
In affirming the ruling from the arbitration panel, the judge noted that the Tribe’s arguments had also been rejected by both the district court and the Second Circuit. He added that the DOI letter “does not warrant disturbing the final judgment.”