Chickasaw Brief and Addendum FILED

Appellate Case: 13-9578 Document: 01019169864 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 1 Case Nos. 13-9578/13-9588 In The United States Court Of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit ______________________________ CHICKASAW NATION, further designation under review by the court, Petitioner – Cross/Respondent v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent – Cross/Petitioner ______________________________ On Petition for Review from the National Labor Relations Board Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman; Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Member; and Sharon Block, Member, Nos. 17-CA-25031 and 17-CA-25121 ______________________________ PETITIONER – CROSS/RESPONDENT’S OPENING BRIEF ______________________________ MICHAEL BURRAGE LLOYD B. MILLER WHITTEN BURRAGE Counsel of Record 1215 Classen Drive DOUGLAS B. L. ENDRESON Oklahoma City, OK 73103 FRANK S. HOLLEMAN (405) 516-7800 SONOSKY, CHAMBERS, SACHSE, [email protected] ENDRESON & PERRY, LLP 1425 K Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 682-0240 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [Additional Counsel on Inside Cover] ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED December 9, 2013 1 of 111 Appellate Case: 13-9578 Document: 01019169864 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 2 STEPHEN H. GREETHAM LEONARD COURT CHICKASAW NATION CROWE & DUNLEVY 2020 Lonnie Abbott Blvd. 20 North Broadway, Suite 1800 Ada, OK 74820 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (580) 272-5236 (405) 235-7706 [email protected] [email protected] BOB RABON RABON, WOLF & RABON 402 East Jackson (Highway 70) Hugo, OK 74743 (580) 326-6427 [email protected] 2 of 111 Appellate Case: 13-9578 Document: 01019169864 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ................................................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 4 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 9 STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................................... 13 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 13 I. THE NLRA DOES NOT APPLY TO INDIAN TRIBES BECAUSE CONGRESS DID NOT CLEARLY INTEND IT TO APPLY, AS ITS PLAIN LANGUAGE, LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES DEMONSTRATE. ......................................................................................... 13 A. Traditional Tools Of Statutory Construction Establish That The NLRA Does Not Apply To Tribes. .............................................. 17 1. The plain language of the NLRA shows the Act does not apply to Indian Tribes. ........................................................ 18 2. The NLRA’s legislative history confirms the Act was never intended to apply to Indian Tribes. .......................... 24 3. Enactments immediately before and after the NLRA confirm Congress never intended the NLRA to apply to Indian Tribes. .............................................................. 27 4. The 1947 amendments to the NLRA confirm that this statutory regime does not apply to Indian Tribes. .............. 30 5. The Indian canon of statutory construction also confirms the NLRA does not apply to Indian Tribes. .............. 32 i 3 of 111 Appellate Case: 13-9578 Document: 01019169864 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 4 II. THE BOARD’S SAN MANUEL TEST IS CONTRARY TO FEDERAL LAW. .......................................................................................... 34 A. The Tuscarora Decision Has No Application to the NLRA Or To Cases Involving The Exercise Of Tribal Sovereign Authority. ............................................................................................ 35 B. The Board’s Tuscarora-Coeur d’Alene Test Is Contrary To Federal Law. ........................................................................................ 37 C. The Commercial-Governmental Distinction Upon Which The San Manuel Test Relies Is Arbitrary and Unmanageable ..................................................................................... 39 III. RAISING REVENUE FROM GAMING ACTIVITIES IS AN EXERCISE OF THE CHICKASAW NATION’S SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. ............................................................................................... 41 A. The Nation Conducts Gaming In The Exercise Of Its Treaty Rights And In Accordance With IGRA, The Oklahoma-Nation Compact And The Nation’s Gaming Laws. ................................................................................................... 41 1. Congress declared in IGRA that Indian gaming is an exercise of the right of self-government, and committed its regulation, including authority over employees, to Indian Tribes. ..................................................... 42 2. The Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit have long held that Indian gaming is an exercise of the tribal right of self-government. .......................................................... 44 IV. APPLYING THE NLRA TO THE NATION WOULD IMPAIR TREATY RIGHTS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT AND NEGATE THE TREATY POWER OF EXCLUSION. ................................................. 47 A. The Nation’s Treaties Protect Its Right Of Self- Government And Power To Exclude And Bar The Application Of The NLRA To Its Activities. ..................................... 47 ii 4 of 111 Appellate Case: 13-9578 Document: 01019169864 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 5 1. The Nation’s Treaties protect its right of self- government and power of exclusion. ........................................ 47 2. The Board miscontrued the Nation’s Treaty right to self-government. ....................................................................... 49 3. The Board’s interpretation of the Nation’s Treaties is misleading and incomplete. ................................................... 51 B. Securing The Nation’s Employees’ Right To Strike Would Grant Them The Ultimate Power To Shut Down Tribal Government. ........................................................................................ 53 C. Applying The NLRA To The Nation Would Fracture The Nation’s Government In Violation Of Its Treaty Rights. ................... 54 D. Subjecting The Nation To The Collective Bargaining Process Would Require That It Bargain For The Application Of Its Own Laws. ............................................................ 57 E. Applying The NLRA To The Nation Would Divest The Nation Of Its Power To Exclude And The Related Authority To Condition Entry Upon Nation Land In Compliance With The Nation’s Laws. ................................................ 59 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 60 ORAL ARGUMENT STATEMENT ...................................................................... 60 iii 5 of 111 Appellate Case: 13-9578 Document: 01019169864 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 6 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Am. Bar Ass’n v. FTC, 430 F.3d 457 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 27 Atlantic & P.R. Co. v. Mingus, 165 U.S. 413 (1897) ............................................................................................ 49 Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S.A., 335 U.S. 138 (1957) .............................................................................................. 9 Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FDA, 153 F.3d 155 (4th Cir. 1998), aff’d, 529 U.S. 120 (2000) .................................. 26 Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (1994) ............................................................................................ 17 Brown v. Port Auth. Police Superior Officers Ass’n, 661 A.2d 312 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995) ................................................. 19 California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) ................................................................................ 12, 45, 46 Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009) ............................................................................................ 17 Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. NLRB, 721 F.3d 152 (4th Cir. 2013) .............................................................................. 26 Chaparro-Febus v. Int’l Longshoremen Ass’n, Local 1575, 983 F.2d 325 (1st Cir. 1993) ............................................................................... 19 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831) ..................................................................................... 18 Chickasaw Nation, 359 N.L.R.B. No. 163 (2013) ......................................................................passim iv 6 of 111 Appellate Case: 13-9578 Document: 01019169864 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 7 Page(s) Chickasaw Nation v. Oklahoma ex rel. Okla. Tax Comm’n, 31 F.3d 964 (10th Cir. 1994), rev’d on other grounds, 515 U.S. 450 (1995) ...................................................................................... 48, 52 Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 620 (1970) .....................................................................................passim Cnty. of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226 (1985) ............................................................................................ 32

Load more