User:Plw2018/sandbox

Chosen article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminole_Tribe_v._Butterworth.

This article is currently a short stub. The stub summarizes Seminole Tribe as an important case protecting Indian gaming. This summary interested me because I am currently taking Federal Indian Law, and in that class we've talked briefly about how much some tribes rely on gaming revenue to fund their tribal governments. The class has not talked extensively about the law behind Indian gaming, but I am hoping the class will give me at least useful background information that will help me better understand the case and its significance.

From the minimal research I have done so far, it looks like this case was one of the earliest indicators for tribes that they may be able to take advantage of certain laws to generate significant revenue through setting up gambling facilities on their reservations. The case was also later cited by important Supreme Court cases on Indian gaming issues. This indicates to me that the case is an influential and significant one in the area of Indian gaming law - even though it is a 5th Circuit decision rather than a Supreme Court decision - and that the case is worthy of a more fleshed-out Wikipedia article covering not only the facts and holding of the case, but also the case's implications and the ways in which it influenced later court decisions, the Seminole Tribe, and other tribes.

Preliminary list of potential sources:


 * Seminole Tribe v. Butterworth, 658 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S.: 1020 (1982) (this case is the focus of the article).
 * Other cases illustrating Seminole Tribe 's impact:
 * Barona Grp. of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians v. Duffy, 694 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1982) (finding Seminole Tribe persuasive and following it).
 * Wisconsin Winnebago Bus. Comm. v. Koberstein, 762 F.2d 613 (7th Cir. 1985) (citing Seminole Tribe and Barona Grp. as authority for the rule that a tribe rather than the state had regulatory power over bingo games conducted on a tribe's reservation).
 * United States v. Hagen, 951 F.2d 261, 264 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Seminole Tribe as persuasive authority and following it).
 * California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 209 (1987) (citing Seminole Tribe and a couple other cases as persuasive authority, and electing to follow it).
 * Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, 36 F.3d 1325, 1330 (5th Cir. 1994) (noting Seminole Tribe as the first case in the 5th Circuit - and one of the first cases ever - to draw the "criminal-prohibitory/civil-regulatory dichotomy," which is now an important doctrinal rule for determining whether a state has jurisdiction over Indian Country in a given situation in Public Law 280 states).
 * Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of Rincon Reservation v. Schwarzenegger, 602 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010) (summarizing history of both the legal and social developments surrounding Indian gaming, and including Seminole Tribe as an important case occurring near the beginning of that history).
 * Secondary sources summarizing Seminole Tribe or discussing its significance and/or impact:
 * Matthew L. M. Fletcher, The Seminole Tribe and the Origins of Indian Gaming, 9 FIU L. Rev. 255 (2014), available at https://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1543&context=facpubs (includes long discussion of Seminole Tribe case and the Seminole Tribe in general).
 * John C. Kuzenski, The Paving Principle of Good Intentions? Calls for Reform of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the Private Game Theory Equilibrium Opposing Them, 30 N.C. Cent. L. Rev. 168 (2008) (starting with a description of Seminole Tribe and its significance in a summary of significant legal developments in the area of Indian gaming).
 * Chris J. Thompson, Internet Gambling: A Road to Strengthening Tribal Self-Government and Increasing Tribal Self-Sufficiency While Protecting American Consumers, 37 Am. Indian L. Rev. 229 (2013) (briefly discussing Seminole Tribe in a summary of the development of Indian gaming law).
 * Background source(s) on general Federal Indian Law issues, including jurisdictional issues and Indian gaming law issues:
 * Robert T. Anderson, Bethany Berger, Sarah Krakoff, & Philip P. Frickey, American Indian Law: Cases and Commentary, 3d (2015).
 * Sources on the Seminole Tribe:
 * From the Seminole Tribe Website:
 * Willard Steele, Brief Summary of Seminole History, Seminole Tribe of Florida, available at https://www.semtribe.com/history/BriefSummary.aspx.
 * Willard Steele, Seminoles Today, Seminole Tribe of Florida, available at https://www.semtribe.com/history/SeminolesToday.aspx.
 * Willard Steele, The Future, Seminole Tribe of Florida, available at https://www.semtribe.com/history/TheFuture.aspx.
 * William C.Sturtevant & Jessica R. Cattelino, Florida Seminole and Miccosukee (2014), in Raymond D. Fogelson, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 14, pp. 429-449 (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution), available at http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/jcattelino/FloridaSeminoleandMiccosukee.pdf (see especially the section on gaming and economic development, starting on p. 446).
 * See Matthew L. M. Fletcher article, above.

Note of caution: Westlaw is not always the best at distinguishing citations to this case, Seminole Tribe v. Butterworth, from citations to the milestone Supreme Court case Seminole Tribe v. Florida. Be careful to distinguish these cases when looking for and reading through sources.