About Our Effort
What is this case about?
This case is about ensuring the law is applied as intended and respecting the People’s vote. It is about fairness, accountability, and consistent legal standards. Enforcing the law to bar illegal gambling would avoid irreparable harm to the community.
What does the lawsuit seek?
The Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians seek an injunction so the vote of the People is respected and the law is followed.
Respect for voters
California voters by a landslide made a clear decision in 2014: Voters rejected North Fork’s proposed casino.
The North Fork casino project in Madera County lacks the legal foundation required under federal and state law. California’s appellate court has confirmed that as a matter of constitutional law the People of California annulled former Governor Brown’s concurrence by a 60/40 margin such that the concurrence never took effect. It was void from the start.
Background
Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a tribe seeking to conduct Class III gaming on land acquired by the Secretary of the Interior after mid-October 1988 generally must obtain a Governor’s concurrence to offer gaming, in addition to other requirements. The People of California exercised their constitutional right to confirm there is not and never has been a Governor’s concurrence for North Fork’s casino project.
2012
In 2012, then-Governor Jerry Brown issued such a concurrence and approved a Tribal-State Gaming Compact for a proposed casino by the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians on a 305-acre parcel near State Route 99, north of the City of Madera. The California Legislature later ratified those decisions. The Legislature’s decision was then challenged by a statewide referendum measure (Proposition 48) that qualified for the 2014 ballot.
2014
In November 2014, California voters rejected the ratification decision through Proposition 48, by a margin of 61% to 39%.
The Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, which operates the Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino on its own reservation lands in Coarsegold, filed suit seeking clarification of the legal status of the Governor’s concurrence.
2021
The California Court of Appeal ruled that the statewide vote on Proposition 48 annulled the Governor’s concurrence for North Fork’s project.
2024
The Madera County Superior Court ruled that Proposition 48 rendered the Governor’s concurrence void from the beginning and that it never had legal effect.
2025
The California Court of Appeal affirmed that decision in December 2025.
2026
The California Supreme Court declined to review the case in April 2026. North Fork also declined to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, under California law the concurrence never took effect and is not in effect. Despite these rulings, development activity on the site has continued, and project representatives have discussed plans for an opening.
FAQs
Where does North Fork want to build its casino?
The proposed location of the casino is on an off-reservation parcel in Madera County, right off State Route 99. North Fork purchased that property with the backing of a Las Vegas casino. The Secretary of the Interior took the land into trust after October 17, 1988.
Does North Fork need the “concurrence” of the California Governor to build its off-reservation casino?
Did California voters reject North Fork’s proposed casino project when voting on Proposition 48 in 2014?
Does North Fork have the concurrence of the California Governor to build its off-reservation casino?
Why did Picayune file a federal lawsuit against North Fork?
What happens next?
News & Updates
Press releases
Press release coming soon
Date TBD · Summary will be added here.
Get in Touch
Media Inquiries
Download Materials