DISCLAIMER: Any unofficial case summaries below are prepared by the clerk's office
as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
181271P.pdf 09/06/2019 Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. Kristi Noem
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 18-1271
U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls
[PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges]
Civil case - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The Tribe failed to remit the
State of South Dakota's use tax on goods and services sold to nonmembers
at the Tribe's Casino and related store, and the State's Department of
Revenue denied the Tribe's applications for renewal of the alcoholic
beverage licenses issued to the casino and the store. The Tribe filed this
action alleging the imposition of the use tax on purchases by nonmembers
on reservation land was preempted by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and
that conditioning renewal of the Tribe's alcohol licenses on use tax
remittance violated 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1161. The district court concluded the
state could not collect the tax on the sale of amenities in the casino but
could collect the tax on sales of goods and services to nonmembers at the
store. The court further determined that the state could not condition
renewal of the liquor licenses on remittance of the taxes due on store
sales. Held: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act does not expressly preempt
the imposition of the use tax on nonmember purchases throughout the casino
but under relevant Supreme Court precedent, the tax is preempted because
the revenues generated by the sales of the amenities contribute
significantly to the economic success of the Tribe's Category III gaming
at the casino, and imposition of the tax would be contrary to the Act's
broad policies of increasing tribal revenue and ensuring the tribes are
the primary beneficiaries of gaming revenue; the State may condition
renewal of the alcoholic beverage licenses on the Tribe's failure to remit
the validly imposed portions of the use tax, and the district court's
holding that it could not, is reversed. Judge Colloton, concurring in part
and dissenting in part.