- Details
- By Chez Oxendine
- Gaming
A federal judge denied a temporary injunction sought by tribes attempting to block a Medford, Ore. casino proposed by the Coquille Indian Tribe.
The Coquille Indian Tribe plans to build the casino, called The Cedars at Bear Creek, on a 2.4 acre plot roughly 160 miles from their existing reservation, having petitioned the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the acreage into trust.
The three plaintiff tribes — the Karuk Tribe, the Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation, and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians — are based in Oregon and Northern California. In early January, the tribes filed a joint lawsuit against the Department of Interior, alleging that Interior exceeded its constitutional authority by issuing a Final Environmental Impact Study (FEIS) for the proposed casino in November.
U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta denied the tribes' motion for an immediate injunction against further Interior approval, writing that the tribes must await a final decision, according to an Ashland News report.
“On Nov. 22, 2024, Interior released a final environmental impact statement reviewing the Coquille’s application to take its land into trust, but the agency has yet to issue a Record of Decision that states whether it will grant the tribe’s request,” Mehta wrote. “Plaintiffs now seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that stays the FEIS and enjoins Interior from issuing an ROD, until the court reviews the lawfulness of the FEIS. … Because the FEIS is not a final agency action, the motion is denied.”
The denial marks the latest step in a long-running controversy around the Medford casino proposal. The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua contends that a casino near their own Seven Feathers Resort would cannibalize its revenues, in turn damaging their ability to support tribal programs.
The Coquille Tribe has defended its push for a second casino as a way of further supporting its citizens. According to previous Tribal Business News reporting, Coquille chairwoman Brenda Meade made the case that it would not constitute off-reservation gaming, given the proposed trust acquisition prior to the casino’s construction.
