Attorney Bio

Tribal Law. Tribal Solutions.



Louisville, CO
P: 303.673.9600
F: 303.673.9155
Download v.card

Mr. Schulte joined the firm in 1995 and became a partner in 2000.

Mr. Schulte has extensive experience serving as lead litigation counsel for American Indian tribes in judicial and administrative forums on a wide variety of issues, including Indian Gaming Regulatory Act litigation, federal fee-to-trust land transactions, tribal exemptions from state regulatory laws, breach of federal trust obligations, federal Tort Claims Act litigation, federal recognition of tribal status, tribal taxing jurisdiction, NEPA litigation, Endangered Species Act litigation, contract disputes, and constitutional rights litigation.

Mr. Schulte has been lead counsel in major litigation over tribal Class II gaming, where he earned victories over the U.S. Department of Justice that enables tribes to utilize video Class II gaming devices as a means of economic development. Mr. Schulte also served as lead counsel in litigation against the City of Detroit over violations of tribal constitutional rights involving bids for casino development contracts. This litigation resulted in a settlement of over $94 million on behalf of his tribal client. Mr. Schulte has also been extensively involved in the negotiation of tribal-state gaming compacts, has served as a co-instructor for a law school course on federal Indian law and has spoken at seminars on various legal issues affecting Indian Country.

Trial and Appellate Advocacy; Tribal Governance; Tribal Sovereignty and Self-Determination; Taxation; Economic Development; Trust Land Acquisition; Natural Resources; Gaming; Environmental and Cultural Preservation; Employment Law; Civil Rights; Governmental Negotiations; Administrative Law; Contracts; and Federal Acknowledgment and Recognition.

Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma; U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and District of Columbia Circuits; U.S. Court of Federal Claims; U.S. District Courts for the District of Columbia, Western District of Michigan, District of Nebraska, Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the Northern District of Iowa; Winnebago Tribal Court; Santee Sioux Nation Tribal Court; Eastern Shoshone & Northern Arapaho Tribal Court; and Muscogee (Creek) Nation Tribal Court. Mr. Schulte has also been admitted pro hac vice to practice in cases in state and federal courts located in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma and Washington states.

Creighton University (J.D., Cum Laude 1993); Board of Editors, Creighton Law Review; University of Nebraska at Lincoln (B.A., 1990).

Adjunct Faculty Co-Instructor, Creighton University School of Law (2000); Judicial Law Clerk to the Hon. John F. Irwin, Nebraska Court of Appeals (1993-1995).

Michigan Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne, 525 F.3d 23 (D. C. Cir. 2008); Wyandotte Nation v. Sebelius, 443 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2006); Wyandotte Nation v. National Indian Gaming Com'n, 437 F.Supp.2d 1193 (D. Kan. 2006); United States v. Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska, 324 F.3d 607 (8th Cir 2003); Lac Vieux Desert Band Of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd., 276 F.3d 876 (6th Cir. 2002); Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Kean-Argovitz Resorts-Michigan, LLC, 249 F.Supp.2d 901 (W.D.Mich. 2003); Wampanoag Tribe of Gayhead (Aquinnah) v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 63 F.Supp.2d 119, (D. Mass. 1999).

Colorado State Bar Association; Nebraska State Bar Association; American Bar Association; Special Member, Native American Bar Association.

Adjunct Faculty Co-Instructor, Creighton University School of Law, Fall 2000.

LEGAL AUTHORSHIP: Working to Preserve Tribal Sovereignty and Prepare for Pending Changes, Inside the Minds, Emerging Issues in Tribal State Relations (Aspatore, 2010 Edition); Co-Author, The Use of Internet Communication Facilities and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 2 Gaming Law Review 473 (1998).

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

© Fredericks Peebles & Morgan LLP