Tribes get temporary reprieve on federal judge’s order to remove slots

Friday, Dec. 4, 1998 | 4:23 a.m.

The federal appellate court agreed Wednesday to let the tribes temporarily keep their slot machines until it can review the case. With Proposition 5 tied up in state court, the earlier removal order by U.S. District Court Judge J. Spencer Letts would have gone into effect Friday were it not for the emergency stay.

The two-paragraph ruling came down the same day the California Supreme Court agreed to block implementation of Proposition 5, the voter-approved measure designed to let the tribes run their casinos on their terms without the state approval required under current law. Two separate lawsuits challenging the new law's constitutionality are pending before the Supreme Court.

The appellate court has asked the tribes and the U.S. Attorney's office to submit briefs about Letts' order by Tuesday, but it is unknown when the court will hand down a ruling. Letts issued his order after the U.S. Attorney's office sought to seize the machines, which prosecutors and Gov. Pete Wilson claim violate the state's ban on Las Vegas-style gambling machines.

Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office, said federal prosecutors had not decided what their arguments Tuesday would be.

"Without Prop 5 there are no compacts, therefore the tribes should be ordered to shut down immediately," Mrozek said in offering one possible argument. "On the other side of the spectrum is (the argument that) there should be a stay put on the injunction, and the state and opponents of Prop 5 should be allowed to litigate that in state court."

The appellate court decision affects nine tribes in Southern California outside San Diego County. Tribes in San Diego County had entered into gambling compacts with Wilson agreeing to not operate the contested machines, among other concessions. The majority of those tribes had hoped to forego those compacts in favor of more lenient ones under Proposition 5, but those plans are in limbo until the Supreme Court rules on the challenges before it.

"The bottom line and the most important point for people to understand is the tribes very much want a compact that is fair to the state and fair to tribes," Frank Lawrence, an attorney for two of the affected Southern California tribes, said Friday. "They've got desperate needs."

Under the 1988 federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, tribes are required to enter into compacts with state governments if they wish to conduct gambling. The majority of the state's casino tribes do not have gambling compacts with the state, but 44 tribes had submitted Proposition 5-style compacts to the governor before the Supreme Court issued its stay.

Wilson did not sign the compacts, but many would have received automatic state approval as early as Friday had the Supreme Court not issued the stay.

Meanwhile, the state Supreme Court has asked for written arguments from parties involved in the two lawsuits pending there in January and could hear the case by springtime. If they uphold Proposition 5, the federal court challenge could become moot.