Earlier thread here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13189668

The BIA was *required* by a court decision and an appeal of that decision to withdraw recognition of a claim the BIA granted a couple of years ago, to permit the casino financiers behind the tribe’s claim to build a $1B casino and resort.

This has nada to do with any homeland or ancestral claim, and everything to do with the casino business.

This is the outcome of a case that’s been in litigation for four years now.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/02/27/business/mashpee-wampanoag-tribe-loses-crucial-appeal-casino-case/

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe on Thursday was dealt another major setback in its effort to build a casino in Taunton, losing a federal appeals court case it hoped would remove a crucial barrier to the long-stalled project.

https://www.casino.org/news/mashpee-wampanoag-tribe-power-struggle-after-failed-casino-bid/

The two leaders are also accused attempting to expel council members who have criticized Cromwell’s handing of finances and his alleged secrecy around casino-related expenditure. In January, Cromwell was temporarily stripped of his financial responsibilities towards the tribe’s affairs after it emerged during his divorce proceedings that he owed $36,901 in unpaid federal taxes.

———

This is the outfit that was bankrolling the project and buying off the tribe’s leaders:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genting_Group

One says there's still federal recognition, the other says they need to reestablish federal recognition.

One side equates reservations and trust land. They're not the same.

As far as I know, the land in trust means that the tribe doesn't officially own it but governs it. There are restrictions, but how to use it is largely up to tribal government.

Taken out of trust, it would revert to the tribal owners. Maybe the tribe owns it as a whole because the tribe bought it--maybe it reverts to the individual owners who turned it over as tribal land.

Here's what's important, though: Trust land isn't subject to local and state restrictions. It could be used for a casino and if there's no gambling in the state, it would be the only casino in the state. Local/state enforcement would include the trust land. And unless there's some shelter, it would be taxable.


Then it was time to question whether Cromwell was accurate and the courts hadn't spoken.

https://www.courthousenews.com/first-circuit-shuts-down-tribes-plan-for-massachusetts-casino/
And the tribe is specifically concerned about a revenue source, a casino.

Most of the rest is posturing, except for the weird "preserve our culture" and "build a casino." The only difference I can see is jurisdiction.


Actual decision: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/WAMPANOAG-ca1.pdf


I also can't find record of a separate mandate apart from the 2/28/20 decision basically saying that Dept. of the Interior did was without legal basis. Then again, it was recent and where I was looking--link follows--may not be up to the minute. (Remember the nature of US legal culture is that if the government isn't authorized to do something then what it does is done without authority and should not have been done.)

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/WAMPANOAG-ca1.pdf