Background
The Wichita and Affiliated Tribes sued Governor J. Kevin Stitt, alleging that three changes in Oklahoma law violated the 2006 Tribal-State Gaming Compact by infringing the tribe’s exclusive right to conduct certain gaming. The tribe sought liquidated damages for the breach and a declaration that it was excused from paying exclusivity fees. The district court granted summary judgment for the Governor, dismissing the damages claim on Eleventh Amendment grounds and rejecting the fee-exemption claim on the merits by finding the compact unambiguous.
The court’s reasoning
The Tenth Circuit held that the claim for liquidated damages was barred by the Eleventh Amendment because it constituted a retroactive award from the state treasury, which Ex parte Young does not protect. Regarding the claim for fee exemption, the court found the tribe had standing because a declaratory judgment against the Governor would have preclusive effect against state officials who actually enforce the compact. On the merits, the court determined that Part eleven point A of the Compact was ambiguous regarding the scope of exclusivity, meaning the district court erred in ruling it unambiguous.
What it means going forward
The tribe cannot recover liquidated damages for the alleged compact violations in federal court. However, the tribe may still pursue a declaratory judgment on remand to determine if it is excused from paying exclusivity fees, as the ambiguity in the compact must now be resolved.