Supreme Court denies hearing on bitter Indian casino battle
The legendary Comanche won’t be getting their day before the U.S. Supreme Court after the justices this week denied the tribe’s petition to be heard on legal issues arising from a bitter dispute over Washington’s handling of Indian casino applications in Oklahoma.
The fight stems from a 2017 Interior Department decision to go around the Comanche and approve — without any consultation — a rival casino project in Terral, Okla., within miles of the tribe’s ancestral lands near the Red River.
More than ever, the ensuing legal battle has exposed years of resentment over how Washington treats the poorer Plains tribes of western Oklahoma versus the more powerful and politically connected Five Civilized Tribes in the east.
Indeed, the newly-built, disputed casino is the 22nd such gaming operation in an already huge multibillion dollar empire controlled by the Chickasaw Nation, the richest of the Five.
In fact, the Comanche were blindsided that construction was already underway on the new Chickasaw casino before Interior published the required public notice in the summer of 2017. The result cost the Comanche precious time in seeking relief, and it’s haunted their efforts since in the federal courts.
Together with the Apache and other Plains tribes, the Comanche fear the Chickasaw’s westward expansion — with the blessing of Interior — threatens their more modest gaming operations and tribal income.
As it happens, the justices still have a second Indian law case pending before them that’s also rooted in Oklahoma. The legal arguments presented in the Comanche’s petition include a footnote directly referencing that case. And depending on how the court rules, the outcome could yet provide some legal footing for the Comanche in future litigation in the lower courts.
Nonetheless, the justices’ denial of the tribe’s petition this week is a setback for the Comanche, denying them a rare chance to air their grievances at a high level.
Still, any such petition for review — known as a writ of certiorari — is a long shot given the high court’s work load and the number of competing interests seeking to be heard as well.
As is typical in such cases, no explanation was given for the denial. But from the court’s website, it is known that the petition, filed in March, was scheduled for a conference of the justices on May 23. On Tuesday, it was listed as having been denied.
“Obviously the Nation is disappointed,” said Richard Grellner, the lead attorney for the Comanche and a veteran of many legal battles on behalf of the Plains tribes. Grellner, based in Oklahoma City, held out hope that a favorable high court ruling on the second Oklahoma Indian law case could give the Comanche’s claims “new life in the lower courts.”
“However, regardless of the outcome,” Grellner said, “the Nation believes Interior and the Chickasaw breached its fundamental obligations to ‘consult’ with the Comanche under a plethora of federal statutes and applicable regulations with respect to the Terral casino.”
