Gaming Association Challenges Intervention
The California Gaming Association argued in its amicus brief that Scotts Valley has no legally enforceable stake in the litigation. “Like most collateral beneficiaries of federal agency action, Scotts Valley lacks a legally cognizable interest in APA litigation challenging that action,” the brief said.
The trade group contended that Scotts Valley’s claim of “deep concern” over the agency action isn’t enough to confer required-party status. The brief further warned that if the tribe’s interpretation of Rule 19 were accepted, even blatantly unlawful federal actions could escape judicial review simply because a tribe benefits.
Key Legal Arguments
The association argued the federal government’s defense of its own actions sufficiently protects Scotts Valley’s interests. It claimed that allowing the tribe to intervene would effectively nullify Lytton Rancheria’s right to judicial review, using tribal sovereignty as a shield to block litigation.
“The tribe asks the court to nullify Lytton’s right to APA judicial review by wielding its sovereign immunity as a shield,” the brief said.
