Talk:Seminole Tribe v. Butterworth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Plw2018.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update on article progress[edit]

I have now added a section summarizing the facts, legal issues and arguments, and holdings in this case. I also added a section about the significance of the case (in particular, the influence the case had on the development of Indian gaming law, and the impact the case's outcome had on the Seminole Tribe).

I still need to edit and updating the very top summary section of the article, and I plan on adding in more links where it would be helpful. I will also do a final proofread of the entire article.

Plw2018 (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of potential sources for this article[edit]

This case:

  • 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:

See also Matthew L. M. Fletcher article, above.

--Plw2018 (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex's comment[edit]

Looks great and I appreciate the excellent list of key sources you have compiled so far in prep for creating and editing the entry. Absolutely an interesting case on federal indian law.

Alex2018ALR (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Alex[reply]