1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 2:15-cv-00940-BJR Document 243 Filed 06/08/18 Page 1 of 54 1 HONORABLE BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 THE TULALIP TRIBES and THE No. 2:15-cv-00940-BJR CONSOLIDATED BOROUGH OF QUIL 10 CEDA VILLAGE, 11 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS THE TULALIP TRIBES’ 12 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE CONSOLIDATED BOROUGH OF QUIL CEDA 13 Plaintiff-Intervenor, VILLAGE’S AND PLAINTIFF- INTERVENOR THE UNITED v. 14 STATES’ POST TRIAL BRIEF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, 15 Washington State Governor JAY INSLEE, Washington State Department of Revenue 16 Director VIKKI SMITH, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, Snohomish County Treasurer 17 KIRKE SIEVERS, and Snohomish County Assessor LINDA HJELLE, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 PLAINTIFFS’ AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S POST-TRIAL BRIEF Kanji & Katzen, PLLC 401 Second Ave. S., Suite 700 No. 2:15-cv-00940-BJR Seattle, WA 98104 206-344-8100 Case 2:15-cv-00940-BJR Document 243 Filed 06/08/18 Page 2 of 54 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 Table of Authorities .................................................................................................................. iii Introduction ................................................................................................................................1 4 Argument ....................................................................................................................................3 5 I. The Bracker Balancing Test Preempts Defendants’ Taxes at Quil Ceda Village ...............3 6 A. The Federal Government Has Powerful Interests in Tulalip’s Retention of the 7 Taxes Generated at Quil Ceda Village ..................................................................3 1. Federal statutes, regulations, and underlying purposes ..............................4 8 2. Direct federal financial investment in Quil Ceda Village ..........................7 9 3. Federal regulatory activities and services in support of Quil Ceda Village......................................................................................................8 10 B. Tulalip Has Powerful Interests in Retaining the Taxes Generated at the Village ............................................................................................................... 10 11 1. Tulalip Has Generated Tremendous Economic Value at Quil Ceda 12 Village.................................................................................................... 10 2. Tulalip Provides Comprehensive Government Services to Taxpayers 13 at the Village .......................................................................................... 15 14 3. Tulalip Has a Strong Interest in Employment at Quil Ceda Village ......... 17 4. Tulalip’s Leases with Businesses Reflect Its Strong Interest in 15 Activities at the Village .......................................................................... 19 16 5. Tulalip Cannot Simply Impose Its Taxes on Top of Defendants’ Taxes ...................................................................................................... 20 17 C. Defendants Have a Weak Interest in Taxing Activities at Quil Ceda Village ...... 20 1. Defendants Provide Few Services at the Village, and Those They Do 18 Are Not Supported by the Disputed Taxes .............................................. 21 19 2. Defendants Receive Substantial Benefits Outside of Quil Ceda Village from Commerce within the Village............................................. 24 20 3. Defendants’ General Provision of Services in Their Jurisdictions Is Entitled to No Weight ............................................................................. 25 21 4. Tulalip Provides Government Services to Taxpayers Outside of Quil 22 Ceda Village ........................................................................................... 27 D. Defendants’ Taxes in Quil Ceda Village Are Preempted Because the Federal 23 and Tribal Interests Overwhelm the State Interests ............................................. 29 24 PLAINTIFFS’ AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S POST-TRIAL BRIEF Kanji & Katzen, PLLC 401 Second Ave. S., Suite 700 No. 2:15-cv-00940-BJR - Page i Seattle, WA 98104 206-344-8100 Case 2:15-cv-00940-BJR Document 243 Filed 06/08/18 Page 3 of 54 1 II. The Doctrine of Tribal Self-Government Bars Defendants’ Taxes ................................. 33 2 III. Evidence Regarding Tulalip’s Financial Condition and Other Revenue Sources Is Not Legally Relevant and Is Entitled to No Weight........................................................ 37 3 IV. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ........................................... 39 4 Table Summary of Tribal & Federal Interests (Illustrative Examples).........................................41 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PLAINTIFFS’ AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S POST-TRIAL BRIEF Kanji & Katzen, PLLC 401 Second Ave. S., Suite 700 No. 2:15-cv-00940-BJR - Page ii Seattle, WA 98104 206-344-8100 Case 2:15-cv-00940-BJR Document 243 Filed 06/08/18 Page 4 of 54 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Cases 3 Barona Band of Mission Indians v. Yee, 528 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................ passim 4 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson, 37 F.3d 430 (9th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................................ passim 5 California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 6 480 U.S. 202 (1987) ........................................................................................ 4, 12, 13, 14, 31 Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 7 490 U.S. 163 (1989) .................................................................................................. 36, 37, 39 8 Crow Tribe v. Montana, 819 F.2d 895 (1987) ........................................................................................................ 37, 40 9 Gila River Indian Cmty. v. Waddell, 91 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 1996) ........................................................................................... 31, 37 10 Gila River Indian Cmty. v. Waddell, 11 967 F.2d 1404 (9th Cir. 1992) ......................................................................................... 10, 33 Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 12 455 U.S. 130 (1982) .................................................................................................. 13, 34, 37 13 New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324 (1983) ....................................................................................................... passim 14 Ramah Navajo School Bd. v. Bureau of Revenue of N.M., 458 U.S. 832 (1982) .......................................................................................................... 4, 28 15 Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Cmty. v. Arizona, 50 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 1995) ....................................................................................... 30, 31, 37 16 Squaxin Island Tribe v. Stephens, 17 400 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (W.D. Wash. 2005) ............................................................................. 40 Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 18 447 US. 134 (1980) ........................................................................................................ passim 19 Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982) .............................................................................................................. 39 20 White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) ....................................................................................................... passim 21 Williams v. Lee, 22 358 U.S. 217 (1959) .............................................................................................................. 33 Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe v. Scott, 23 117 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1997) ........................................................................................ passim 24 PLAINTIFFS’ AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S POST-TRIAL BRIEF Kanji & Katzen, PLLC 401 Second Ave. S., Suite 700 No. 2:15-cv-00940-BJR - Page iii Seattle, WA 98104 206-344-8100 Case 2:15-cv-00940-BJR Document 243 Filed 06/08/18 Page 5 of 54 1 Statutes 15 U.S.C. § 1-278 ..................................................................................................................... 10 2 15 U.S.C. § 13........................................................................................................................... 10 3 15 U.S.C. § 70a ......................................................................................................................... 10 4 15 U.S.C. § 1637 ....................................................................................................................... 10 15 U.S.C. § 1638 ....................................................................................................................... 10 5 15 U.S.C. § 1664 ....................................................................................................................... 10 6 15 U.S.C. § 1665a ..................................................................................................................... 10 15 U.S.C. § 1665b ..................................................................................................................... 10 7 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693 – 1693r ........................................................................................................ 10 8 15 U.S.C. § 1693o-2(a)(2) ........................................................................................................