IN RE: CLASS I1 GAMING ORDINANCE OF 

THE KENAITZE INDIAN TRIBE 

HNAL ORDER 

March 18,2004 

The Kenaitze Indian Tribe (Tribe) adopted a Class 11 gaming ordinance on 

December 4,1994. After amending the ordinance, the Tribe submitted the ordinance to 

the National Indian Gaming Commission (Commission) Chairman for review and 

approval.' The NIGC received the gaming ordinance, as amended, on February 13,1995. 

The Chairman disapproved the Tribe's gaming ordinance by letter dated May 12, 1995. 

The Tribe did not appeal the Chairman's decision to the fill Commission but filed suit in 

the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to set aside the Chairman's 

decision to disapprove the ordinan~e.~ 

The United States Department of Justice, representing the Commission, sought 

remand for further administrative consideration of the Chairman's decision in a motion 

filed with the Court on February 4,2000. The purpose of remand was to allow the 

Commission to provide detailed explanations supporting the decision to disapprove the 

ordinance, if appropriate, to reexamine additional facts raised in the Tribe's First 

Amended Complaint in the case, and to examine changed circumstances involving the 

proposed gaming properties.3 In its Remand Order of January 18,2001, the Court 

granted the motion and returned the NIGC Chairman's administrative decision of May 

12,1995, disapproving the ordinance to the Commission for rec~nsideration.~ 

' Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, an Indian tribe may engage in, or license and regulate, Class I1 

gaming on Indian lands subject to the tribe's jurisdiction if the governing body of the tribe adopts an 

ordinance or resolution which is approved by the NIGC Chairman. See 25 U.S.C. 9 2710(b). 

2 Under Commission regulations, a tribe may appeal the Chairman's disapproval of its ordinance. See 25 

C.F.R. Part 524. 

3 See Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Akiachak Native Community, et al. v. Monteau, 

m., CIV No. 1 :96-CV-02302 ,U.S. Dist. Ct. for the District of Columbia, p.1. 

4 Order of January 18,2001, Akiachak Native Community, et al. v. Monteau, et al., CIV No. 1 :96-CV02302 ,US. Dist. Ct. for the District of Columbia. 
A period of inactivity followed the Court's Remand Order by agreement of the 

parties. The Tribe and the Commission agreed to delay reconsideration of the gaming 

ordinance pending the outcome of litigation in the companion case of Native Village of 

Barrow v. NIGC and a determination by fie Tribe on whether it wished to adopt a new 

gaming ordinance that would cure technical deficiencies in the original ordinance. 

Following discussions and correspondence with the attorney representing the Tribe, the 

Commission's Senior Attorney wrote to the Tribe on June 3,2003, explaining that the 

Commission now wished to reconsider the gaming ordinance and seeking information on 

whether the Tribe wanted to make necessary corrections to the ordinance or propose 

alternative sites within the Tribe's jurisdiction for a gaming operation. The Tribe 

responded by letter dated July 2,2003, that it withdrew its ordinance from any further 

consideration by the NGC and indicating further that, if the Tribe desired consideration 

of a gaming ordinance by the NIGC, an ordinance would be resubmitted for approval. 

ORDER: 

s the Kenaitze Indian Tribe's request of July 2, 

ordinance fiom fwrther review by the Commission 

IAN GAMING COMMISSION: 

Chairman Commissioner Commission 

Date 

See Letter of April 17.2001, from NIGC Senior Attorney William Grant to Attorney Bertram Hirsch, 

part of the administrative file in this matter.