Home Arts & Leisure Malloy and tribes sue feds over failure to sign off on gaming...

Malloy and tribes sue feds over failure to sign off on gaming amendments


Governor Dannel P. Malloy said the state is teaming up with the Mohegan and Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nations in filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke over the agency’s decision not to offer either approval or rejection on the  July 20 gaming compact amendments signed by the governor and the tribes.

gaming amendments
A rendering of the proposed East Windsor casino. Image courtesy of Tecton Architects

The amendments are required by state law to authorize joint tribal development of a new casino at East Windsor. Under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the amendments need federal approval or disapproval within 45 days of their submission. If approved, the Interior Department is required to publish its approval notice in the Federal Register.

In September, Michael S. Black, acting assistant secretary for Indian affairs at the Interior Department, sent a letter to the office of Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen stating the department’s Bureau of Indian Affairs was not ready to offer its approval. But Black’s letter also seemed to question whether such approval was necessary.

“We have completed our review of the amendment,” Black wrote. “We return the amendment to you to maintain the status quo as action on the amendment is premature and likely unnecessary. The amendment addresses exclusivity provisions of the gaming compact. We find there is insufficient information upon which to make a decision as to whether a new casino operated by the Mohegan and Mashantucket Pequot Tribes would or would not violate the exclusivity clauses of the gaming procedures. The tribes have entered into an agreement with the state whereby they have agreed that the exclusivity provisions will not be breached by this arrangement. Therefore, our action is unnecessary at this time.”

The Interior Department offered no further public comment on the issue since Black’s letter. Malloy, however, insisted that a federal signoff was mandated by law.

“State law requires that these compact amendments are in fact approved,” he said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “That’s why I have asked the attorney general to file this action. We need clarity and certainty with respect to this issue. In addition, we are also seeking to compel the secretary of the Interior to publish notice of approval of the amendments in the Federal Register, which is necessary in order for the amendments to be legally effective and enforceable.”

The East Windsor location for the proposed casino was designed to compete against MGM Resorts International’s upcoming casino across the border in Springfield, Massachusetts. In September, MGM Resorts unveiled a proposal to create a casino resort at the Steelpointe Harbor development in Bridgeport, but this would require a change in state law to enable casino ownership by a nontribal entity. Malloy was not publicly enthusiastic over the Bridgeport plan when it was announced, adding, “I can’t imagine any scenario under which the tribal nations would agree to open up the (gaming) compact on those grounds. But perhaps they will.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. It never ceases to amaze me just how United States Constitution-stupid politicians-state and federal-are piled on top of how stupid their attorney’s are! As of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, there are no more “Indians” within the original meaning of the United States Constitution…only U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” entitled to no more and no less than every other non-Indian U.S./State citizen in accordance with the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment’s ‘equal protection’ Clause! And, yet, Title 25-INDIANS and faux ‘Indian treaties’ whereby these attorneys and politicians-state and federal-assert the United State Constitution has provision whereby We, the People, have ‘treaties’ with Other We, the People, because of the “Other’s” Indian ancestry/race and non-Indians believe this hoax.

    Worse yet are judges-state and federal-who woefully fail to uphold and defend the United States Constitution in their oath of office clearly articulated in CJ Marshall’s Marbury decision posted below by accepting both sides attorney’s petition there are “Indian Treaties” and “Indian reservations” where politicians-state and federal-continue to regulate from womb to tomb a select group of U.S./State citizens health, welfare, safety, benefits, capacities, metes and boundaries because of their “Indian ancestry/race” at the same time condemn “Jim Crow Laws” citing the United States Constitution’s 14th Amendment for one….what hypocrites!

    The United States Constitution makes for no provisions for “Indian reservations!” Land commonly known as an “Indian reservation” with rare except is land owned by the People of the United States according to a federal document readily available on-line where U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” residing on said land are merely tenants with rights of ‘use and occupancy’ only!

    If I can find these federal documents on-line, why are high-powered politicians-state and federal-and their highly paid attorneys and judges-state and federal-too stupid to do the same?

    United States Supreme Court MARBURY v. MADISON, (1803) Argued: Decided: February 1, 1803:
    “If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
    It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
    If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
    Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
    This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

    This article is an astonishing piece of a deplorable lack of journalist curiosity regarding U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” since The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924! That single Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, made null all previous common law-state and federal-including Presidential Executive Orders, Commerce Clause and Treaty Clause alleged Indian Treaties (if any U.S. Senate confirmed Indian treaties actually existed pre-1924 Citizenship) regarding U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” so often touted by politicians and Indian advocates as being legitimate law.
    And yet, politicians and MSM continue to perpetuate willful blindness to the Constitutional absurdity that Congress, Presidents/Governors, Initiatives and Referendums can make distinguishable the capacities, metes and boundaries of a select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” post citizenship. There is nothing in U.S.C. Title 25-INDIANS that speaks to the Constitution’s mandate that common law must be for “We, The People, By The People and For The People’s” health, welfare, safety and benefits for a specific geographic area of a State or the Union.
    The United States Constitution makes for no provisions for:
    1. Indian sovereign nations. None of the asserted tribes possess any of the attributes of being a ‘sovereign nation:’ a. No U.S. Constitution recognition b. No international recognition c. No fixed borders d. No military e. No currency f. No postal system g. No passports h. et al
    2. Treaties with its own constituency
    3. Indian reservations whereby a select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” reside exclusively and to the exclusion of all others, on land-with rare exception-that is owned by the People of the United States according to a federal document readily available on-line that notes rights of renters as ‘occupancy and use’ by these distinguished U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” only with the land owned by the People of the United States.
    4. Recognition of ‘Indian citizenship’ asserted by various tribes. There is no international/U.S. Constitution recognition of “Indian citizenship” as there is no ‘nation-state’ from which citizenship is derived.
    A simple question for politicians and MSM to answer…a question so simple, it is hard:
    “Where is the proclamation ratified by the voters of the United States that amends the Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race?”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here