For years we have fought the issue of tribes opening casinos. In most cases, the tribes have won and were able to open the casinos. Now we find Newsom opposing a Federally approved tribe casino—again, Newsom has determined he rules California without any Federal oversite. Why does Newsom want to economically harm this tribe?
‘— California Governor Gavin Newsom and the state of California sued the federal government Friday over its decision to greenlight a massive tribal casino project in Sonoma County wine country, claiming federal officials flouted the law and undermined state sovereignty.
In the suit filed in the Northern District of California, the state challenges the federal Department of Interior’s approval for the Koi Nation of Northern California to build a sprawling gambling complex on the “Shiloh Site,” 68.6 acres of land adjacent to the town of Windsor.
The planned development would include 2,750 slot machines, 105 table games, a 400-room hotel and facilities capable of hosting more than 10,000 people.”
If they own the land, and the Feds approve, why is Newsom trying to steal it?
California sues feds over approval of tribal casino project
The Golden State and Governor Gavin Newsom say the government should not have approved the Koi Nation casino because the tribe lacks historical ties required for gaming on newly acquired land.
Jeremy Yurow, Courthousenews, 5/2/25 https://www.courthousenews.com/california-sues-feds-over-approval-of-tribal-casino-project/
(CN) — California Governor Gavin Newsom and the state of California sued the federal government Friday over its decision to greenlight a massive tribal casino project in Sonoma County wine country, claiming federal officials flouted the law and undermined state sovereignty.
In the suit filed in the Northern District of California, the state challenges the federal Department of Interior’s approval for the Koi Nation of Northern California to build a sprawling gambling complex on the “Shiloh Site,” 68.6 acres of land adjacent to the town of Windsor.
The planned development would include 2,750 slot machines, 105 table games, a 400-room hotel and facilities capable of hosting more than 10,000 people.
“This case is about respecting the history of tribal sovereigns, protecting communities from unchecked casino-style gaming, and preventing federal administrative overreach,” Newsom and the state say in their complaint.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act generally prohibits gaming on lands acquired after October 17, 1988, with certain exceptions. In approving the project, federal officials invoked the “restored lands” exception, which permits gaming on newly acquired land that’s part of “the restoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to Federal recognition.”
The governor and state argue that by using this exception, Interior Department officials sidestepped crucial safeguards, including a “two-part determination” process that would have required consultation with local officials and the governor’s concurrence.
“The record on which Interior relied in its decision is insufficient to show that the acquisition of the Shiloh Site constitutes a ‘restoration’ of the Koi Nation’s tribal lands. Interior’s decision is therefore contrary to law, and otherwise arbitrary and capricious,” the plaintiffs say.
Newsom and the state take particular aim at the Interior Department’s finding that the Koi Nation had a “significant historical connection” to the Shiloh Site. Federal officials cited evidence including trade routes, census reports and burial grounds to justify their decision.
But Newsom and California say this evidence falls far short of establishing the kind of enduring tribal presence required under the law.
“Trade is a transitory activity that necessarily involves other communities; it does not imply an enduring tribal presence comparable to the exercise of tribal sovereignty or control,” they write. “The presence of individual tribal ancestors, during the twentieth century, is not the same thing as the collective presence of the tribe itself.”
The plaintiffs contrast the Koi Nation’s more tenuous connection to the Shiloh Site with its well-documented ties to ancestral homeland around Clear Lake, approximately 30 miles away, where they say evidence shows “dense historic Indigenous habitation,” ancestral villages and burial sites.
“The lack of evidence in the record for the Koi Nation’s enduring, collective presence on the Shiloh Site stands in contrast to the extensive evidence that the Koi Nation itself has articulated its enduring, collective presence in its Clear Lake homeland,” the plaintiffs write.
The state also challenges the Interior Department’s approach to filling gaps in the historical record. Federal officials stated they would resolve “perceived gaps or inconsistencies” in favor of the Koi Nation, citing legal precedent and Congressional intent.
Newsom and California call this approach legally flawed, particularly since other local tribes — including the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, which filed a similar lawsuit in February — oppose the casino project.
The plaintiffs also claims the Interior Department’s decision undermines commitments made to California voters when they approved Proposition 1A in 2000, legalizing tribal gaming in the state.
“California voters were promised that tribes’ casino-style gaming would remain carefully limited geographically,” Newsom and the state said, suggesting the federal action violates this understanding.
Additionally, the plaintiffs argue the decision forces unwanted obligations on the state to negotiate in good faith with the Koi Nation for a gaming compact. If these negotiations fail, California could lose regulatory authority over gambling at the site.
“By circumventing the two-part determination process, Interior has deprived the governor and the state of their rights to engage in consultation, to be protected by the Secretary’s determination that gaming would not be detrimental to surrounding communities within the State’s jurisdiction.”
The plaintiffs seek to void the Interior Department’s decision and secure a declaratory judgment that the site is ineligible for gaming under gaming act’s “restored lands” exception.
Courthouse News reached out to the office of Governor Gavin Newsom for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
