Upstate Citizens
for Equality
UCE, et al v. United
States of America, et
al
UCE has filed
its action challenging, among other things, the authority of the U.S.
Department of the Interior to take any land into trust for the Oneida Indian
Nation of New York. It has been assigned Case #08-CV-00633 and is currently
assigned to SUSDJ McCurn.
The nature of
UCE's claims against the Defendants in this action, as more fully appears in
the Complaint, that:
(a)
The Defendants are acting, have acted and will continue to act:
i.
in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short
of statutory right in taking any land identified in the Defendants' notice of
intent into trust under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934;
ii.
contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity in
taking any land in the State of New York into trust under the Indian
Reorganization Act of 1934;
iii.
Acted in an arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise
not in accordance with law in rendering its determination dated May 20, 2008,
to take land into trust under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934;
iv.
without observance of procedure required by law in rendering its
determination dated May 20, 2008 to take land into trust under the Indian
Reorganization Act of 1934.
(b)
The Defendants determination that the 1993 tribal-state compact between
the State of New York and the Oneida Indian Nation of New York remains in
effect under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act dated June 13, 2007, and the
NIGC's approval of the Oneida Indian Nation's Gaming Ordinance dated January 3,
1994 is:
i.
contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
ii.
in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short
of statutory right;
iii.
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law;
iv.
without observance of procedure required by law.
(c)
Defendants have failed to adhere to and/or promulgate their own
regulations and policies, make regular inspections, or take vigorous
inspections in order to carry out their enforcement duties under the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.) and a writ of
mandamus should issue directing them to carry out these duties.
Others have also filed lawsuits challenging this decision of the federal government:
Click here to view the complaint of the TOWN OF VERONA, TOWN OF VERNON, ABRAHAM ACEE and ARTHUR STRIFE challenging the DOI's determination to land into trust for the Oneida Indian Nation of New York
Click here to view the complaint of the STATE OF NEW YORK; DAVID A. PATERSON,
in his capacity as Governor of the State of New York;
ANDREW M. CUOMO, in his capacity as Attorney
General of the State of New York; MADISON
COUNTY, NEW YORK; and ONEIDA COUNTY,
NEW YORK, challenging the DOI's determination to land into trust for the Oneida Indian Nation of New York
Click here to view National Grid's complaint challenging the DOI's determination to land into trust for the Oneida Indian Nation of New York
Click here to view the Stockbridge-Munsee's complaint challenging the DOI's determination to land into trust for the Oneida Indian Nation of New York
Click here to view the CENTRAL NEW YORK FAIR BUSINESS ASSOCIATION,
CITIZENS EQUAL RIGHTS ALLIANCE, DAVID R.
TOWNSEND, New York State Assemblyman, MICHAEL J.
HENNESSY, Oneida County Legislator, D. CHAD DAVIS, Oneida
County Legislator, and MELVIN L. PHILLIPS complaint challenging the DOI's determination to land into trust for the Oneida Indian Nation of New York
Below
are the
Pleadings
and
documents
in this
action.
|
|
|
|
|
