“ToJur land base is very small and only one tiny parcel in Niobara is held in trust,” which the
Regional Director agreed was “very true.”°°

Therefore, we conclude that as of September 15, 2000, the Tribe’s and Interior’s intent
was to take the Carter Lake parcel into trust for the purpose of promoting the Tribe’s economic
vitality and self-sufficiency along with reestablishing the Tribe’s land base, which aligned with
Ponca Economic Development Plan and the PRA*!. As the D.C. Circuit found in City of
Roseville v. Norton:

A reading allowing the Auburn Tribe to participate in that economic base furthers this

purpose of IGRA .... The same objective is apparent in AIRA, which directs the Secretary

to consult with the tribe regarding a plan for economic development. AIRA's purpose of

reestablishing the Auburn Tribe as an economically viable entity would be served by

considering the new reservation established under the Restoration Act a “restoration of

lands” allowing it to operate a gaming facility.>?
Essentially, this case is similar in that the intent as of September 15, 2000, was the Tribe’s
economic renewal and reestablishment of its land base; two grounds for supporting a finding of
restored lands.>3

And it is no matter that the Tribe did not contemplate a gaming use for the parcel when it
applied to have it taken into trust or on appeal of BIA’s trust decision before the IBIA in 2001,
but instead represented that the parcel would be used for a health care facility. Nor is the IBIA’s
reliance in 2002 on the Tribe’s representation of its intended use for the parcel relevant. As we

have held, intended use of a parcel and representations regarding such are not proper

considerations for a restored lands analysis — “the focus of the analysis is whether the land was

3° Id. at 2.

31.25 U.S.C.A. § 983h.

32 348 F.3d at 1030.

33 See page 2, supra (Restoration means to renew and reestablish).

5


(iv) _ the parecl was acquired in trust to reestablish the Tribe’s land base and to
compensate it for historical wrongs.*°

These facts are now weighed against our finding above, weighing against the Tribe, that it
intended not to assert or rely upon the parcel’s status as restored lands during September 29,
2002 through February 10, 2003. Given the significance of the ail the facts weighing in favor of
the Tribe though - that the parcel is among its first meaningful acquisitions with no other
significant intervening parcels; that the acquisition correlated directly with a systematic
economic and land acquisition plan to acquire and develop land in Pottawattomie County for
reestablishing the Tribe’s land base, economic viability, self-sufficiency, and ending its
longstanding poverty;*” that the parcel is located in the PRA’s service area; and that the parcel
was taken into trust to compensate it for the historical wrongs of termination,** resultant
poverty,°? loss of its reservation, and forced removal that resulted in the death of many of its
members® - they outweigh the Tribe’s intent.

The restored lands “exception requires only that the lands in issue [ | be part of ‘the

restoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to Federal recognition.” “That language

implies a process rather than a specific transaction, and most assuredly does not limit

restoration to a single event.”*!

As noted before, a restoration of lands: “compensates the Tribe
not only for what it lost by the act of termination, but also for opportunities lost in the interim;”

“could easily encompass new lands given to a restored tribe to re-establish its land base and

© NIGC 2017 Amendment to Decision at 38-39.

*? Letter from Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary — Indian Affairs to Honorable Albert E. Gore, President of the
Senate (Feb. 17, 2000); see, e.g., .

°8 Chair Disapproval at 19-21; City of Roseville, 348 F.3d. at 1029 (“Had the Auburn Tribe never been terminated, it
would have had opportunities for development in the intervening years, including the possible acquisition of new
land prior to the effective date of IGRA.”).

* Letter from Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary — Indian Affairs to Honorable Albert E. Gore, President of the
Senate (Feb. 17, 2000).

© Chair Disapproval at 15-17.

5! Grand Traverse Il, 198 F. Supp. 2d at 936 (emphasis added).

10


Iowa, “agreed upon by the Ponca’s attorney,” which “[t]he Solicitor’s office had no problem
including,” because if it was not included, “Iowa would have litigated the matter in Federal
Court.”°8 By letter dated December 13, 2002, to the Tribe’s attorney, the Iowa Assistant Attorney
General described their agreement:
Based upon our agreement that the lands will be used in a manner consistent with the
original application and the corrected Public Notice, and not for gaming purposes, you have
requested that the State of Iowa and Pottawatomie County forego judicial review and
further appeals. Inasmuch as the corrected Public Notice now filed in this case contains the
non-gaming purpose restriction to which we have agreed, the State of Iowa has agreed not

to pursue judicial review or further appeals of the final decision of the United States
Department of the Interior in this case.*

Previously, we determined that the agreement is invalid,*° because the record is devoid of
materials demonstrating the Tribe’s attorney’s express or implied actual authority to enter into
it! And we further found that Iowa accepted the risk of inaccurately assessing the attorney’s
authority to bind the Tribe, because it was the State’s burden to confirm that an agent of a
sovereign tribe had actual authority to enter into the agreement.” Given these findings and the
fact that they show nothing of the Tribe’s intent since their agent lacked actual authority, the
agreement — as agreed to by the Tribe’s attorney and reflected in the Corrected Notice - does not
weigh against the Tribe. Likewise, the lowa Assistant Attorney General’s letter to the Tribe’s
attorney, acknowledging the agreement, as well as BIA’s email, characterizing it, cannot be
factored against the Tribe , as they also do not demonstrate the Tribe’s or the Federal

+3

Government’s intent*’ and only recognize an invalid agreement.

38 Email from Tim Lake re: Ponca Tribe of Nebraska — Carter Lake, Iowa Fee-to-trust (Dec. 3, 2002).

° Letter from Jean M. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, lowa Department of Justice, to Michael Mason re: Ponca
Tribe of Nebraska, Department of the Interior, Trust Acquisition of Carter Lake lands (Dec. 13, 2002).

“ NIGC 2017 Amendment to Decision at 23.

4! NIGC 2017 Amendment to Decision at 16-20.

# Id. at 20-22.

43 Interior did not make a restored lands determination in the Corrected notice or the email. See Nebraska, 625 F.3d
at 510-11.


acquired as part of the Tribe’s restoration, not on what the Tribe planned to do with the land at
the time.”34

B. Agreement, Corrected Notice, & Subsequent Ratification

That being said, we must consider the circumstances that occurred after the
administrative appeal of Interior’s decision to accept the parcel into trust as well as any
modification of the Tribe’s intent in acquiring the parcel. As detailed at great length in both our
prior decisions, Iowa and the Tribe’s attorney reached an agreement to avoid further litigation
(an appeal of the IBIA decision to federal court) that was acknowledged by Iowa and the Tribe’s
attorney but not memorialized in writing.>> On November 26, 2002, the Tribe’s attorney sent the
BIA an e-mail asking that the notice to take the parcel into trust (Corrected notice) include the
following language:

The trust acquisition of the Carter Lake lands has been made for non-gaming related
purposes, as requested by the Ponca Tribe and discussed in the September 15, 2000
decision under the Regional Director’s analysis of 25 C.F.R. 151.10(c). As an
acquisition occurring after October 17, 1988, any gaming or gaming-related
activities on the Carter Lake lands are subject to the Two-Part Determination under
25 U.S.C. sec. 2719. In making its request to have the Carter Lake lands taken into
trust, the Ponca Tribe has acknowledged that the lands are not eligible for the
exceptions under 25 U.S.C. sec. 2719(b)(1)(B). There may be no gaming or
gaming-related activities on the land unless and until approved under the October
2001 Checklist for Gaming Acquisitions, Gaming-Related Acquisitions and Two-
Part Determinations under Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act has
been obtained.*®

The BIA published the notice on December 6, 2002, including the language.*” An internal BIA

email characterized this paragraph in the notice as “a compromise reached by” the Tribe and

342007 Commission Decision at 2, 9-12.

35 2007 Commission Decision at 3-5; 2017 Commission Amendment to Decision at 4-5.

°° E-mail from Michael Mason to BIA Superintendent, Yankton Agency, re: Carter Lake settlement language (Nov.
26, 2002).

37 See Corrected Notice, Council Bluffs Daily Nonpareil (Dec. 6, 2002).


confirm the bounds of that authority; its assumption of the risk of inaccurately assessing that
authority; its failure to protect its interests by obtaining the Tribal Council’s express
authorization of the agreement in 2002;*8 and the Tribe’s subsequent ratification based upon the
sum of the events described in our 2017 Amendment (which began in September 29, 2002*). In
addition, we also consider our prior finding that “Iowa expended no resources in reliance on the [
] agreement.”°° In light of all these circumstances, we give no weight to Iowa’s decision not to
initiate a lawsuit against Interior for taking the parcel into trust. It is simply a neutral fact due to
Iowa’s own failures in coming to that decision and in expending no resources in reliance on the
agreement.

The trust acquisition was completed on February 10, 2003, noting that the application to
take the land into trust was made under the Indian Reorganization Act,>! the Corrected notice
was published, and “no litigation was filed” by Iowa or Pottawattomie County, and, therefore,

the deed was approved.*?
C. Weighing of All the Factual Circumstances

Our 2017 Amendment discussed in extensive detail other factual circumstances of the

trust acquisition that weighed in the Tribe’s favor:
(i) __ there were no significant intervening trust acquisitions prior to the parcel;**

(ii) the parcel’s acquisition was in line with the Ponca Economic Development Plan,
mandated by the PRA, to reestablish the Tribe’s economic viability;>*

(iii) the parcel was acquired into trust from the PRA’s service area;>> and

48 NIGC 2017 Amendment to Decision at 29.

*” Id. at 25 (citing date of the Omaha World Herald publication containing the Tribe’s attorney’s statement).

%° [d, at 28. lowa expended no resources in reliance on the agreement during the period at issue (September 24, 1999
through February 10, 2003) as well as afterwards, up and until the Tribe’s repudiation in October 2005.

5125 U.S.C. § 476.

52 Warranty deed (Jan. 28, 2003); Letter from BIA Acting Great Plains Regional Director to BIA Superintendent,
Yankton Agency (Feb. 10, 2003).

53 NIGC 2017 Amendment to Decision at 36-37;

+4 Td. at 36-38.

35 Id. at 38.


National Indian Gaming Commission

In re: Gaming Ordinance of the

Ponca Tribe of Nebraska April 30, 2019

eS

Revised Amendment to Final Decision and Order

On March 26, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of lowa remanded
the National Indian Gaming Commission’s! decision amendment that confirmed its approval of
the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska’s? site-specific gaming ordinance. The court directed NIGC to
“reconsider[ ] its restored lands analysis,” instructing: “[t]he Commission shall evaluate the 2002
Agreement and the Corrected Notice as factual circumstances of the trust acquisition in
accordance with this Order.” Specifically, “the NIGC must consider the facts and circumstances
surrounding the agreement as part of its restored lands analysis,”* including the import of these
facts and circumstances as well as their weight against the other factual, temporal, and
geographic factors.°

L Restored Lands Legal Standard
Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act® to regulate Indian gaming and to

promote tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments.” As

' Hereinafter NIGC.

? Hereinafter Tribe.

3 City of Council Bluffs, lowa v. United States Dep't of Interior, No. 117CV00033SMRCEB, 2019 WL 1368561, at
*18 (S.D. Iowa Mar. 26, 2019).

‘Id.

5 Id. (“As to how crucial [these facts and circumstances] were, and how they balance against other factual, temporal,
and geographic factors, the Court leaves that determination to the NIGC.”).

6 Hereinafter JGRA, 25 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.

725 U.S.C. § 2702(1).


to the location of the land in relation to the tribe’s historical location.’ Similarly, in Grand
Traverse II, the court concluded that the reasoning contained in prior Solicitor’s opinions
was appropriate — ‘if a tribe is a restored tribe under the statute, any lands taken into trust
that are located within the areas historically occupied by the tribes are properly considered
to be lands taken into trust as part of the restoration of lands under § 2719.’®8

The parcel is within the Tribe’s historical area.

IV. Balancing of All Factors

All three factors weigh in favor of the Tribe; accordingly, the Carter Lake parcel qualifies
as restored lands for a restored tribe. But even if our analysis of the factual circumstances factor
is in err (though we believe it is not), we hold that together, the temporal and geographic factors
outweigh the factual circumstances factor. Moreover, we hold that the parcel constitutes a
restoration of lands on the basis of timing and location, each standing alone. There were only 13
years between the Tribe’s restoration and the parcel’s trust acquisition”? and only one year
between the Tribe’s acquisition of the land and its application to have the land taken into trust.
And, since the parcel is within the aboriginal territory of the Tribe and the Tribe possesses
modern connections to it, based upon the geographic factor alone, the parcel is restored lands. In
accordance with prior Solicitor’s opinions, if a tribe is a restored tribe, “any lands taken into trust
that are located within the areas historically occupied by the tribes are properly considered to be

lands taken into trust as part of the restoration of lands under § 2719.”7!
Vv. Conclusion

We affirm our decision of November 13, 2017.

68 fd. at 34 (internal citations omitted),

© Id. (quoting Chair Disapproval at 24-25: “[s]cholars have identified the aboriginal territory of the Ponca, and it
includes Carter Lake”).

7 Id. at 40.

7| Id. at 34 (internal citations omitted).

12


compensate it for historical wrongs;” and are “the lands the Secretary takes into trust to re-
establish the tribe’s economic viability.”* Here, the parcel’s acquisition fits squarely within the
renewal and reestablishment of the Tribe, its economic well-being, and its land base as well as
within restitution, “for decades of improper treatment as a terminated tribe”® and the historical
wrongs occurring before that time.“ These facts overcome and outweigh the Tribe’s intent not to
claim or rely on the parcel’s status as restored lands at the time of the acquisition. Therefore, the
factual circumstances factor weighs in favor of the Tribe.
Ill. Temporal & Geographic Factors

The temporal and geographic factors are not at issue here. On two occasions, we have
affirmed the Chairman’s conclusions that both factors weigh in favor of the Tribe, supporting a
finding that the Carter Lake parcel constitutes restored lands. We incorporate our prior
discussions of these factors herein.®

Of import, however, is that “land may be considered part of a restoration of lands on the
basis of timing alone.”® As set forth in both our prior decisions, the Tribe purchased the Carter
Lake parcel in September 1999, filed its application to take the land into trust in January 2000,
and “[t]he trust acquisition would have been complete in September 2000 but for litigation.”®”
Similarly, under circumstances such as these, the geographic factor may by itself be grounds for
finding land restored. Lands taken into trust located within a tribe’s historical area are regarded

as restored lands. As we explained:

In Wyandotte Nation v. National Indian Gaming Commission, the court underscored that
the geographic factor is ‘arguably most important [ ] component of the test,’ as it ‘relates

© City of Roseville, 348 F.3d. at 1027, 1029, and 1031; See also Grand Traverse II, 198 F. Supp. 2d at 936 (“the
Band's evidence clearly established that the parcel was of ... economic ...significance to the Band.”).

® Koi Nation, supra at *22.

“4 See, e.g., Koi Nation, supra at *18.

65 2007 Commission Decision at 17; 2017 Commission Amendment to Decision at 33-34.

& Grand Traverse Il, 198 F. Supp. 2d at 936.

672017 Commission Amendment to Decision at 33 (quoting Chair Disapproval at 25-27).

11


However, we also previously concluded that the Tribe subsequently ratified its attorncy’s
agreement: “[w]hen we review all of the circumstances, we must conclude that the Tribe had
actual or constructive knowledge at some point during the period between 2002 and 2005 and for
a limited period of time acquiesced in the agreement.”“4 As set forth above, the time period for
assessing the factual circumstances of the trust acquisition here is from September 24, 1999
through February 10, 2003.*° Since the Tribe’s ratification occurred at some point between 2002
through 2005, the beginning of this period - up and until February 10, 2003 - comes within the
circumstances surrounding the trust acquisition and, therefore, the Tribe’s ratification must be
considered. Though, as decided earlier:

Significantly, neither [the Tribe’s attorney’s] agreement nor the Tribe’s short-lived

acquiescence was an admission that the Carter Lake parcel did not satisfy IGRA’s

definition of restored lands. At best the agreement attempted to memorialize the Tribe’s
pledge that it would not invoke that exception to IGRA’s prohibition of gaming on lands
acquired after IGRA’s enactment in exchange for the State’s agreement not to seek judicial
review of the IBIA’s decision.*®
Consequently, at the time of the trust acquisition, the Tribe’s ratification equated to a promise
not to invoke the restored lands exception as to the parcel. And although this was not an
admission that the parcel did not qualify as restored lands, it reflects the Tribe’s intent not to
assert or rely upon the parcel’s status as such at that time.*” This fact weighs against the Tribe.
Further, lowa’s decision not to challenge the trust acquisition in federal court must be

viewed amongst all the circumstances surrounding the trust acquisition, including: the lack of

actual authority by the Tribe’s attorney to enter the agreement; its own failure to ascertain and

4 Id. at 25.

4 See page 4, supra.

“© NIGC 2017 Amendment to Decision at 27.

“7 As explained in our 2017 Amendment, the Tribe “clearly repudiated [the] agreement beginning with the October
7, 2005 [ ] letter.” NIGC 2017 Amendment to Necision at 26, However, the factual circumstances of the trust
acquisition end on February 10, 2003; therefore, the Tribe’s repudiation is not considered.

8


In the matter at hand, the time period at issue begins on September 24, 1999, when the Tribe
purchased the Carter Lake parcel in fee and shortly thereafter?’ applied to have it put into trust,
and ends on February 10, 2003, when the trust acquisition was completed by Interior.”4
A. Initial Trust Application, Initial Interior Decision & IBIA Appeal

Of consequence during this time period is the Tribe’s intent in acquiring the parcel.?*
Initially, in 2000, the Tribe informed Interior that “[t]he primary justification for taking this land
into trust is the intent of Congress in passing the Ponca Kestoration Act and the Assistant
Secretary’s support for and understanding of the Ponca Economic Development Plan.”?6 The
BIA Superintendent agreed, recommending approval of the trust acquisition because it was in
line with the Plan “that proposes having land in trust in Pottawattamie County.”?’ During the
same year, the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs described the Plan as “call[ing] for a diverse
portfolio of development” in five tribal service areas, including where the parcel is located, and
characterized the Plan as “mean[ing] self-sufficiency for the Tribe and an end to the poverty the
Tribe has lived with since termination.”?’ On September 15, 2000, the BIA Regional Director
announced her decision to take the parcel into trust, noting that it was “within the aboriginal land

once used and occupied” by the Tribe and that the Tribe was “in need of additional land to

deliver { ] services to their members.””? The decision quoted the Tribe’s Chairman as stating:

23 This occurred on January 10, 2000. See 2017 Commission Amendment to Decision at 4 (citing Tribe Resolution
00-01).

4 See 2017 Commission Amendment to Decision at 6 and fn. 27.

25 See Grand Traverse II, 198 F. Supp. 2d at 936-37.

?6 Letter to Cora L. Jones, BIA Regional Director, from Mr. Fred LeRoy, Tribal Chairman (Aug. 23, 2000).

?7 Memorandum to BIA Area Director, Aberdeen, from Superintendent, Yankton Agency re: Ponca — fee to trust —
Carter Lake, [A (Aug. 11, 2000).

28 Letter from Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary — Indian Affairs to Honorable Albert E. Gore, President of the
Senate (Feb. 17, 2000); See also 2017 Commission Amendment to Decision at 36-37 and fn. 178.

© Letter from BIA Great Plains Regional Director to Carter Lake Mayor, lowa Governor, and Pottawattamie County
Supervisors at 1-2 (September 15, 2000) (internal citations omitted).

4


tribe,’ fits more comfortably with the concept of restitution, for decades of improper treatment as
a terminated tribe.”!*

Yet courts instruct that the common meaning of restoration may also inform the analysis
to limit “after-acquired property in some fashion.”!” A parcel’s restoration may possibly “be
limited by the factual circumstances of the acquisition, the location of the acquisition, or the
temporal relationship of the acquisition to the tribal restoration.”'* Here, we apply this test!? to
determine whether the Carter Lake parcel was taken into trust as part of the restoration of land to
the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska (Tribe).?°

Il. Factual Circumstances Factor
“Under this factor, the factual circumstances of the acquisition must provide indicia of
restoration.””! In assessing whether the factual circumstances surrounding the acquisition of a
tribe’s land qualified as a restoration of lands, the court in Grand Traverse II utilized a time
period that began with the tribe’s effort to acquire land and ended when that effort concluded:

[B]etween March 1988 and July 1990, the Band engaged in significant efforts to acquire

land. The United States took into trust multiple parcels of property that continue to

constitute the majority of its trust lands. On April 20, 1989, the Band acquired title to a

parcel of land [ ] that is commonly referred to as the ‘Turtle Creek’ site. .. . The site was

placed into trust on August 8, 1989. The trust application for the Turtle Creek site did not
indicate that it was being acquired for gaming purposes, though it did specify that it may

be used for future economic development. ... The Band [ ] has introduced uncontradicted
evidence of the intent of the Band in acquiring properties between 1988 and 1990.22

' Td. at *22.

'” Grand Traverse IT, 198 F. Supp. 2d at 935.

'8 [d.; Nebraska ex rel. Bruning v. U.S, Dep't of Interior, 625 F.3d 501, 510 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Grand Traverse
I, supra at 935.).

'° The district court upheld the Commission’s decision not to apply the Part 292 regulations. See City of Council
Bluffs, supra at *16.

?° No one contests that the Tribe is a restored tribe for purposes of the exception. See Nebraska, 625 F.3d at 510.

21 Wyandotte Nation v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1193, 1214 (D. Kan. 2006).

22 198 F, Supp. 2d at 925 and 937.


previously explained®, IGRA generally prohibits gaming on parcels taken into trust after 1988
but provides certain exceptions to the prohibition.? The restored lands exception is for lands

“taken into trust as part of ... the restoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to

Federal recognition.”!°

“IGRA does not define ‘restoration of lands’; therefore, courts have held it to be

vil

ambiguous and interpreted it broadly,”'' meaning, “read broadly, in service of IGRA’s overall

12 Moreover, the Indian

goal of promoting tribal economic development and selt-sutticiency.
canon of statutory construction has been applied to the exception, affording tribes a liberal
construction of it in their favor.'? The exception’s terms restored and restoration have been
given their common meanings," including: “to put back into a former or proper position;” “to
bring it back to an original state;” “to give back, return, make restitution, reinstatement, renewal,

and reestablishment.”'> As explained recently, “the syntax of the restored lands exception, which

discusses not simply the restoration of the lands themselves, but their restoration ‘for an Indian

® The Commission incorporates herein its prior explanations of IGRA’s Section 20, the restored lands exception, and
the exception’s purpose and legal framework. See Commission Final Decision and Order in re: Gaming Ordinance
of the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska (Dec. 31, 2007) (2007 Commission Decision) at 6-7; Commission Amendment to
Final Decision and Order in re: Gaming Ordinance of the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska (Nov. 13, 2017) (2017
Commission Amendment to Decision) at 30-32.

° 25 U.S.C. § 2719.

125 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii).

"' Butte Cty., Cal. v. Hogen, 609 F. Supp. 2d 20, 29 (D.D.C. 2009) (citing as an example: City of Roseville v.
Norton, 348 F.3d at 1020, 1026-27 (D.C.Cir.2003)); see also Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians
v. Office of U.S. Atty. for W. Div. of Michigan, 369 F.3d 960, 971 (6th Cir. 2004) (the “presumptive bar against
casino-style gaming on Indian lands acquired after the enactment of the IGRA [ ] should be construed narrowly (and
the exceptions to the bar broadly) in order to be consistent with the purpose of the [GRA, which is to encourage
gaming”).

"? Koi Nation of N. California v. United States Dep't of Interior, No. CV 17-1718 (BAH), 2019 WL 250670, at *22
(D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2019), appeal pending (quoting in part City of Roseville v. Norton, 348 F.3d 1020, 1030 and 1032
(D.C. Cir. 2003)).

5 See City of Roseville, 348 F.3d at 1032; Butte Cty., 609 F. Supp. at 28 fn. 8.

' See 2017 Commission Amendment to Decision at 30-31 for a full discussion.

'S Koi Nation, supra at *18 (quoting TOMAC, Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos v. Norton (“TOMAC ”), 433
F.3d 852, 865 (D.C. Cir. 2006); City of Roseville, 348 F.3d at 1027; Grand Traverse, 369 F.3d at 967.).

2


It is so ordered by the NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION on this 30th day
of April, 2019.

Kathryn fsom-Clause
Vice Chair

13