Judge: Vallejo Casino Halt May Not Equal ‘Harm’ to Scotts Valley Band – Yet
Posted on: May 25, 2025, 07:39h.
Last updated on: May 25, 2025, 07:39h.
- Tribe seeks to stop federal review of casino project
- Judge questions urgency but flags possible agency overreach
- Rival tribes challenge ancestral claim to Vallejo land
A federal judge In Washington D.C. appeared to agree with the U.S. government’s argument Friday that a California tribe had not been “irreparably harmed” by a US Interior Department’s decision to review its gaming eligibility for a Bay Area casino resort.
The Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians has spent nearly a decade pushing to build a $700 million casino resort in Vallejo, Calif. The tribe believed the project was finally a go after the outgoing administration approved its trust land application on January 10, 2025.
In March, the new administration put the decision on hold pending legal analysis of whether the land qualified for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
Where’s the Harm?
The Scotts Valley Band filed suit against the Interior Department, seeking an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the agency’s reconsideration and reinstate its gaming eligibility. The tribe argued it would suffer irreparable harm and emphasized that the Biden administration’s original determination followed years of extensive administrative review and litigation.
During opening arguments on Friday, the government claimed that the tribe has not yet been truly “harmed” because its gaming eligibility hasn’t been revoked, merely put on hold while the agency reconsiders. Since the agency hasn’t made a final decision, there’s no legal “injury” yet, argued Kristofor Swanson of the U.S. Justice Department.
Judge Trevor McFadden agreed with the DOJ that it’s hard to see urgent damage if the tribe’s casino project is still years from completion.
Your irreparable harm claim is a tough one to make,” he said, as reported by Law360.
However, McFadden appeared troubled that the Interior might not have properly considered the tribe’s financial and legal reliance on the January approval.
If true, that could make the agency’s actions “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act — a legal standard courts use to strike down flawed agency decisions.
The tribe has authorized $1.8 million in expenditure connected to the casino project since the January approval, according to its lawsuit.
COLT on Board with Scotts Valley
The casino project has sparked controversy, in part because it faces opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom and several local Patwin tribes. These tribes challenge the Scotts Valley Band’s ancestral ties to the proposed site — a key requirement for gaming eligibility.
The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation and the Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation filed lawsuits against the Interior Department just days before the agency chose to revisit its decision. They argue that the land in question has historically belonged to the Patwin people and dispute the Scotts Valley Band’s claimed lineage to the area.
But last week, the Coalition of Large Tribes (COLT), a national tribal organization representing the interests of more than 50 federally recognized Native American tribes, filed an amicus brief to the court in support of the Scotts Valley Band.
While other tribal organizations might be reticent to say and do the right thing here—supporting Scotts Valley—because other powerful tribal casino interests don’t want the competition that might arise from Scotts Valley exercising its sovereignty and gaming (just as they do)—COLT has no such misgivings. COLT is always willing to speak truth to power,” wrote Hon. Marvin Weatherwax, Chairman of the Blackfeet Nation, in a letter accompanying the brief.
“What happens in one land-into-trust decision can impact all others across the country,” reads the amicus brief. “The bests interests of all of Indian Country are served by keeping politics out of those processes, strictly following the law, and acting consistently with the Department’s many strong supporting tribes’ self-determination, including the finality of the land-into-trust process following publication in the Federal Register.”
Last Comments ( 1 )
This case underscores just how complex and politically charged land-into-trust decisions can be—especially when sovereignty, economic development, and intertribal disputes intersect. The point raised about financial reliance on the prior approval deserves serious attention. At UltraWinCom.in, we often explore how legal shifts impact tribal enterprise and digital policy. Hoping for a resolution that respects both due process and tribal self-determination. — Team UltraWinCom