Mr. Charles A. Iiobbs 

Wobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker 

1819 11 Street, N.W., Suite 800 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Mr. William S. Papazian 

Vice president and General Counsel 

Capital Development Gaming corporation 

Bayport One, Suite 250 

8025 Black Ilorse Pike 

W. Atlantic City, NJ 08232 

Mr. Randy Noka, First Councilman 

Narragansett Indian Tribe 

P.O. Box 268 

Charlestown, RI 02813 

January 17, 1997 

Gentleman: 

us This letter constitutes the final deciaion of the National Indian 

Gaming Commissiorl (NIGC) regarding chairman Manteau's December 16, 

1996, disapproval of the management agreement between the 

Narragansett Tribe (Tribe) and Capital Development Gaming 

Corporation. As discussed below, we have determined that the 

Chairman's decision to disapprove the management agreement should 

be upheld. Your appeal is therefore denied. 

BACKGROUND 

On June 21, 1995, the Narragansett Tribe and capital Development 

Gaming corporation eubmitted a management agreement between the 

parties to the NIGC for review and approval pursuant to the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. S 2711. Review of the management 

agreement proceeded until December 16, 1996. 

On September 30, 1996, President Clinton signed P.L. 104-208. Part 

of this enactment amended the FUrode Island Indian claims Settlement 

Act, 25 U.S.C. S 1708, to remove the settlement lands referred to 

therein from the application of IGM. P.L. 104-208 states that the 

Tribe's "settlement lands shall not be treated as Indian lands1' for 

purposes of IGRA. 

On December 16, 1996, the NIGC disapproved the management agreement 

between the Narragansett Tribe and Capital Development Gaming 

- - - - - ----- - - - - - --- -- - - - _ -- --- -- P -- 1441 LEEET, t4.W. 9TH FLOOR WASttINOTOt4 DC 20005 TEL.: 202.&32-70Q3 FAX: 202-632-7060 ---I ---- - 
corporation. The Chairman, in llis disapproval letter, stated that 

"[blecause the Settlement Land has been removed from the 

application of IGRA and shall not be treated as Indian lands, the 

*' 

NIGC may not approve the Contract. Therefore, your Contract is 

disapproved. " 

On December 20, 1996, the NIGC received an appeal from Charles A. 

Nobbs on behalf of the Narragansett Tribe. On January 10, 1997, 

the NIGC received an appeal from William S. Papazian on behalf of 

Capital Gaming Development Corporation. 

DISCUSSION 

The NIGC1s statutory and regulatory powers are limited to approving 

management agreements governing the conduct of gaming on "Indian 

lands1' within the meaning of IGRA. See 25 U.S.C. S 2710(b) (1) (A). 

"Indian landsv are defined as 

a) all lands within the limits of any Indian reservation, 

and 

b) any lands title to whictl is either held in trust by 

the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or 

individual or held by any Indian tribe or individual 

subject to restriction by the United States against 

alienation and over which an Indian tribe exercises 

governmental power. 

See 25 U.S.C. S 2703(4). ilowever, P.L. 104-208 states that the I "I Narragansett 'I'ribe's lands at issue are not "Indian Lands" as 

defined by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 

In your appeal letter, you argue that the portion of P.L. 104-208 

that removes the ~ribe's lands from the definition of "Indian 

Landst1 contained in the Indian ~aming Regulatory Act ie void as 

contrary to the Equal Protection Clauee of the U.S. Constitution. 

Thus, you believe that -the Tribe's lands qualify as ''Indian Landsu 

under IGRA and that the management agreement should be approved. 

Notwithstanding your argument, P.L. 104-208 plainly states that the 

Narragansett Tribe's lands at issue do not qualify as "Indian 

Lands1' as defined by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Until a 

court of competent jurisdiction determines that the portion of P.L. 

104-208 that removes the Tribe's lands from the definition of 

"Indian lands1' under IGRA is unconstitutional, the National Indian 

Gaming commission must follow the law as prescribed by Congress and 

signed by the President. Gaming may not be conducted on the lands 

at issue unless the lands qualify as "Indian lands." Because the 

management agreement between the parties calls for the conduct of 

gaming activities on lande that are not "Indian lands" as defined 

by IGRA, any gaming conducted on those lands would violate the 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Thus, we believe the Chairman was 

correct to disapprove the management agreement. 
CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the chairman's decision to disapprove 

the management agreement between the partiee ie upheld, and your 

%wf appeal is denied. Thie decision if final for the National Indian 

Gaming Commission.