The Ho-Chunk Nation Supreme Court recently reached a decision in one of the most publicized cases ever to be heard at the tribal court building in Black River Falls. 
It would mark the end of a long legal dispute between two bodies within the Ho-Chunk Nation. Formally known as HCN Gaming Commission v. HCN Ethics Review Board, the case has called public attention to the Nation’s appointed officials and their exertion of power. 
“It’s a compelling story,” stated Executive Manager of HCG-Madison Dan Brown.  “It’s an issue that directly affects the Nation’s lifeblood.”
The dispute began in August 2015, when the gaming commission suddenly revoked the licenses of the top two financial officers at HCG-Black River Falls.  Since regulations prohibited the two from operating without a gaming license, their company was forced to terminate them.   
A complaint was filed against the gaming commission with the Ethics Review Board (ERB), which found that the regulatory body’s actions were in violation of the Nation’s Code of Ethics. 
To penalize them, the board assessed a fine against each of the commissioners and recommended that they be removed from the gaming commission entirely.  Unsatisfied with such a decision, the commission filed a lawsuit against the ERB in trial court, arguing that the board overstepped its authority as part of the legislative branch. 
“This sub entity is engaging in executive-branch functions,” said attorney Erik Shircel.  “It is engaging in investigations, as well as issuing citations and ethical violations.  That would be like the legislature writing the traffic code, and then going out and issuing speeding tickets.” 
The trial court ultimately sided with the ERB, however, and upheld its decision.  The gaming commission then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, seeking a different outcome. 
Oral arguments were presented in October, at which point both parties restated their case. 
“The legislature is engaging in both its legislative functions and executive-branch enforcement,” Shircel said.  “(But) the constitution doesn’t allow the executive branch to delegate its enforcement ability back to the legislature.” 
The attorney representing the ERB pointed out that all of the board’s decisions were reviewable, and was the reason the two parties found themselves in court. 
“I would be sympathetic to the appellants’ arguments if the final decisions of the Ethics Review Board were not reviewable,” said attorney Andrew Adams.  “But they’re fully reviewable, in the same way that the Gaming Commission’s decisions are reviewable by the trial court.” 
The Supreme Court took less than 50 days to issue its ruling, which is now publicly available. 
“This Court affirms the Trial Court’s decision,” stated the Supreme Court justices. 
The three judges agreed that the lower court had taken appropriate action by upholding the ERB’s decision.  As a result of the ruling, both courts have now supported the recommendation to remove the Nation’s gaming commissioners. 
No statement has been released from the department yet.