into a full casino, which would include Class III gaming. To do so, OIN negotiated a gaming compact with then Governor Mario Cuomo in 1993; a prerequisite to creating an Indian casino pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). UCE challenged the compact's validity because the state legislature failed to approve the compact, pursuant to the New York State Constitution. In Pataki, the New York State Supreme Court held that despite Cuomo's representation and belief that legislative approval was unnecessary, the compact was not valid because the state legislature had not approved the same. The OIN appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the lower court. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. After the Court of Appeals decision, the OIN petitioned the US Supreme Court to review the decision, but the high court denied certiori. The OIN argued that the US Secretary of the Interior approved the compact and that removed the need for the state legislature's approval. The IGRA incorporates state laws into federal law. Specifically, provides "for purposes of Federal law, all State laws pertaining to the licensing, regulation, or prohibition of gambling, . . . shall apply in Indian country in the same manner and to the same extent as such laws apply elsewhere in the State." The Tenth Circuit held that the Secretary of the Interior's approval of a gaming compact has no impact on its validity because state law controls whether a gaming compact is valid." However, to date, the Second Circuit has not adopted this view in regards to the validity of a compact. The Pataki case was a state court action, and did not receive review in the Second Circuit. The OIN then sought relief with the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). After many failed attempts to negotiate a settlement by an April 2007 deadline, the Department of the Interior launched its own investigation into the compact's validity. On June 13, 2007, when the Associate Deputy Secretary of the Interior declined to reconsider its approval of the compact, Mr. Cason stated, "the 1993 Compact continues to be in effect for purposes of the IGRA". In UCE's lawsuit against the DOI, UCE challenged the DOI's decision regarding the compact's validity in addition to its challenge of the DOI's decision to take land into