Both tribes take issue with a new revenue-sharing scheme they say violates federal-Indian law. They claim that the state acted in bad faith during gaming compact negotiations which began in 2018.
These compacts were between the state of California (represented by Governor Gavin Newsom), the Berry Creek Maidu Indians and the Pauma Band of Mission Indians, respectively.
As the two compacts were signed separately, Newsom argues that the litigation process should be taken on an individual basis and that consolidation of their suits would be unlawful.
A spokesperson commented: “Although there are common, but not identical, legal theories under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA)... these cases possess very different facts."
In the case of Berry Creek's lawsuit, a complaint was made in December 2021 which alleged the state had failed to consider a fair renewal of its agreement with the tribe. The tribe has found the terms of the 2018 compact to be ‘unacceptable’.
As well as believing California and Newsom are in violation of IGRA 1988, the Berry Creek tribe has other issues with the state. It argues that the government has approved “off-reservation” gambling proposals by rival tribes which unfairly compete with Berry Creek’s Gold Country Casino in Oroville, California.
The Pauma Band tribe fosters similar resentments toward the Governor and the state. It claims Newsom foisted unfair demands in compact negotiations, such as the payment of revenue-sharing fees to cover state expenses that were not directly related to the regulation of Indian gambling.
Multiple tribes have sued California over the renegotiations of state-tribal compacts. The complaints follow a similar pattern, stating that: the federal government subjects tribal gambling facilities to strict environmental and labor rules and a new revenue-sharing scheme that violates federal-Indian law.
California state has reiterated its position on these two latest suits, with a spokesperson commenting: “Berry Creek and Pauma conducted sovereign negotiations with the state defendants separately. As a result, each tribe will be required to prepare with the state defendants its own entity that documents these independent negotiations."
