As reported by: Casper Star Tribune
Wyoming should not be forced to accept casino-style gambling on the Wind River Indian Reservation, even though the state allows nearly unlimited gambling at charity or social events, a state attorney argued Monday.

In a hearing before a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, an attorney for the Northern Arapahos countered that state and federal laws allow tribes to offer the same types of gambling that states permit for charities.

The case stems from the tribe's attempts beginning in 2000 to negotiate a compact with the state for gambling on the Wind River reservation. The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act allows tribes to engage in the same types of gambling allowed by other groups in a state.

After the negotiations failed, a federal judge in February 2002 ordered a new round of talks aimed at allowing only pari-mutuel betting, or betting on horse and dog races, and calcutta betting, which is similar to pari-mutuel games but deals with other types of sports events.

The judge ruled that the state had negotiated in bad faith by refusing to discuss the possibility of allowing calcutta and pari-mutuel betting.

Both sides appealed. The tribe said the judge improperly limited what kinds of gaming could be allowed, and the state said it had negotiated in good faith.

In the meantime, a court-ordered mediator sided with the tribe on allowing numerous types of casino-style gambling, and that plan is pending before the Interior Department.

At Monday's hearing, Wyoming Deputy Attorney General Craig Kirkwood said any gambling allowed on the reservation should be limited to calcutta and pari-mutuel, as the judge suggested in 2002.

Kirkwood argued that other games cannot be allowed because Wyoming law does not permit for-profit gambling on other casino-style games, such as blackjack or slot machines.

Judge Stephanie Seymour questioned why the state could set limits on the types of games allowed on the reservation when state law allows any type of social or charitable gambling.

Kirkwood said the essential difference is that the tribe would be earning a profit.

Tribal attorney Andrew Baldwin said the underlying purpose of the gambling doesn't matter. Under state and federal law, he said, if a charity is allowed to raise money through card games or roulette, for example, the tribe should be allowed to earn a profit through the same games.

"The problem with Wyoming's argument is it's not recognizing the fundamental activity of gaming," he said. "It limits the activity, but it is permitted. With the exception of for-profit, it's pretty wide open."

The judges took the arguments under advisement.