trust for the OIN. The US Interior Department's position was that the June 13, 2007, correspondence was not the end of it reconsidering the validity of the tribal-state compact, but merely a suspension of its reconsideration. On August 7, 2007, in an action between New York State and the OIN, U.S. District Court Judge Kahn upheld Magistrate Treece's order directing the depositions of high-ranking officials and denying the State's motions. The decision also dismissed the Amended Complaint pleading, which attacked the Board's authority to amend the Compact due to Peterman and Seneca, on subject matter jurisdiction grounds. The fact that the amended complaint was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds deprived the court of the opportunity to address, directly, the compact's validity at the federal level. If the compact was invalid, then the Oneida Indian Nation would be violating federal law (operating a gaming facility without a tribal-state compact). Such a violation of federal law would have provided the requisite subject matter jurisdiction (federal question) to address the amended complaint. Even though the State sought to enjoin the Nation from operating Instant Multi Game ("IMG") based on its failure to adhere to the procedures in the Compact, the state has since dropped this case. In 2013, the OIN, New York State, and Madison and Oneida Counties reached a landmark agreement that resolved the ongoing issues regarding the tribal-state compact, taxing issues, and the land upon which the resort casino is built. The agreement also ended all litigation pending between the three entities at the time of the agreement. Casino location site legality In addition to whether the tribe-state gaming compact was valid, the other issue was whether the location chosen to conduct the gaming was legal. New York State Law forbade Class III gaming on lands within New York State. The casino was located on Indian Territory as defined in the IGRA. However, the issue was compounded in light of the City of Sherrill v Oneida Indian Nation US Supreme Court decision. The DOI stated "compact does not specifically refer to the site where ... the Nation has built a major new facility in anticipation of being able to conduct gaming in the future. Since the compact tracks the [IGRA's definition of 'Indian lands'], we ... take no position with regard to whether this new facility is on 'Indian land' as that term is used in IGRA". Justice Ginsburg opined that although