State of Idaho v. Coeur d' Alene Tribe

Filing 28

ORDER. It is ORDERED that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes' Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Brief 20 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

STATE OF IDAHO, a sovereign State
of the United States,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:14-cv-00170-BLW
ORDER

v.
COEUR D’ALENE TRIBE, a federally
recognized Indian tribe,
Defendant.

BACKGROUND
Earlier this month, the Coeur d’Alene Tribe allegedly began conducting Texas
Hold ’em tournaments at the Coeur d’Alene Casino Resort Hotel. Texas Hold ’em is a
poker game. The State of Idaho seeks an injunction prohibiting the Tribe from
conducting these tournaments, based on its argument that poker is an expressly prohibited
form of gambling under Idaho state law. The Tribe opposes the motion for injunctive
relief and also moves to dismiss the State’s complaint.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes seek to file an amicus brief in support of the
Tribe’s motion to dismiss and in opposition to the State’s motion for a temporary
ORDER - 1

restraining order. See Dkt. 20. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes explain that the Court’s
resolution of the dispute between the Coeur d’Alene Tribe and the State “would . . . place
in serious and immediate jeopardy the scope of Class II games that the ShoshoneBannock Tribes may offer on its Indian lands.” Id. at 2. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
also say that if the Court “tak[es] jurisdiction” over this matter, it would “seriously erode
the self-governance of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes because the dispute is beyond
Congress’ intended limited abrogation of tribal sovereign immunity in actions brought by
states in federal court regarding Indian gaming.” Id. at 2-3.
DISCUSSION
There is no inherent right to file an amicus brief. Rather, district courts retain
broad discretion to either permit or reject the appearance of amicus curiae, and typically
allow amicus briefs only when they are both timely and useful. See Gerritsen v. de la
Madrid Hurtado, 819 F.2d 1511, 1514 (9th Cir.1987). In addition, participation of
amicus curiae may be appropriate where legal issues in a case have potential
ramifications beyond the parties directly involved. See, e.g., Sonoma Falls Developers,
L.L.C. v. Nev. Gold & Casinos, Inc., 272 F. Supp. 2d 919, 925 (N.D. Cal. 2003).
Still, though, one court has observed that “[t]he vast majority of amicus curiae
briefs are filed by allies of litigants and duplicate the arguments made in the litigants’
briefs, in effect merely extending the length of the litigant’s brief. Such amicus briefs
should not be allowed. They are an abuse. The term ‘amicus curiae’ means friend of the
court, not friend of a party.” Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 125 F.3d
1062, 1063 (7th Cir.1997) (Posner, J.).
ORDER - 2

The Court will allow the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to file an amicus brief in this
case because of the potential impact this Court’s decision may have on that tribe.
Additionally, the amicus brief is timely and some parts of it are useful to the Court. The
Court reaches this decision with some reservations, however, as it appears that some of
the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ arguments are either (i) similar to the arguments the
Coeur d’Alene Tribe is already making or (ii) arguments the Coeur d’Alene Tribe easily
could have made for itself. For example, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes devote three
pages to discussing correspondence between the litigants themselves. See Amicus Brief,
Dkt. 20-1, at 8-11; Mtn., Dkt. 20, at 6 (“The analysis in the proposed Amicus is intended
to bring the Court’s attention to particulars of the correspondence submitted as evidence
in support of the State’s motion, and provide recent case law not cited by the Coeur
d’Alene Tribe, . . . .”). This correspondence was already before the Court. Because of
this sort of overlap in arguments, the Court does not anticipate allowing the ShoshoneBannock Tribes to offer oral argument at the upcoming June 3, 2014 hearing.
ORDER
It is ORDERED that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ Motion for Leave to File an
Amicus Brief (Dkt. 20) is GRANTED.

DATED: May 29, 2014

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

ORDER - 3