Judge Denies Hotel Chain’s Bid to Overturn Standing Ruling in Racial Discrimination Case

RAPID CITY, S.D. — U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on Monday denied a motion by Retsel Corporation to reconsider a standing order in a racial discrimination case involving the Grand Gateway Hotel, ruling that the hotel chain failed to show extraordinary circumstances warranting relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

Retsel, which operates the Grand Gateway Hotel and Cheers Sports Lounge and Casino in Rapid City, argued that a recent U.S. Supreme Court concurrence by Justice Samuel Alito in Trump v. CASA, Inc. undermined the court’s prior conclusion that individual Native American plaintiffs had standing to sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

The hotel chain claimed the plaintiffs, including members of NDN Collective, were merely “testers” who lacked a sincere intention to book rooms for themselves and were instead acting solely on behalf of the activist organization.

Retsel argued that under Alito’s concurrence, the plaintiffs could not simultaneously act as individuals with personal injuries and as agents for NDN Collective, asserting that federal courts may not grant relief to individuals acting on behalf of an organization.

Schreier rejected the argument, noting that the plaintiffs were asserting “first-party” standing because they were personally discriminated against when hotel employees ordered them to leave after seeing a social media post alleging a “no Natives” policy.

“The Court is unwilling to impose an either-or standard on the Plaintiffs such that they either are solely individual Native people or solely NDN activists but not both,” Schreier wrote, citing a prior order. “They can be and were both and to say otherwise is to deny their identity as Native people.”

The judge also dismissed Retsel’s second argument that the plaintiffs could not form a legally binding contract because they admitted they were not the intended guests and could not identify who the intended guests were.

Schreier ruled that Retsel raised this “legal impossibility” argument for the first time in its reconsideration motion, rather than in its initial summary judgment briefing, and therefore the court was not required to consider it.

Even if considered, Schreier found the argument meritless, noting that plaintiffs testified they would have followed through with rentals and that any ultimate guests would have provided the identifying information required by South Dakota law.

The denial comes after a five-day jury trial in December 2025, where a jury returned a verdict ruling for all Native American plaintiffs on their § 1981 claims.

The jury was instructed on the issue of “tester standing” and implicitly rejected the defense that the plaintiffs were testers by ruling in their favor.

Retsel had previously filed multiple motions arguing that the plaintiffs’ status as testers deprived them of Article III standing, an issue that had been raised in at least nine prior orders.

Schreier’s order denies Retsel’s Motion for Relief Pursuant to Rule 60(b) (Docket 348) in the case NDN Collective v. Retsel Corp.