seven b of the restoration act to games that are otherwise permitted under texas law section one hundred and seven be clearly provoked that the state cannot exercise civil or criminal regulatory jurisdiction over the tribes gaming activities that section has to mean something that section and its interpretation is not covered by is little one this is the st time that the court has been asked to construe and apply section one of seven b in the context of a game that is otherwise permitted under texas law and it's our language argument and it's a clear plain language argument it's undisputed that congress intended to leave the tribe with regulatory authority over gaming in section one hundred and seven b one of seven b is under obviously one of seven that is the gaming issue now the state and other district courts that have been confused by this and have admitted that they were confused about this and said well it's late on one settle this and they take that surrogate federal law language that that is in his late one and they say it's late once said that texas laws and regulations are surrogate federal law over the gaming activities there's an issue with that the problem with that is the problem with that interpretation is that that would leave nothing left for one of seven b reservation of the tribes sovereignty the holding of his little one cannot resolve the issue that is before the court today what we're asking this court to do is interpret one of seven b in a in a way that is consistent with both is little one and with the plain language of the restoration act i'm not going to argue cabazon banned i'm not going to you brand x not going to argue chevron we're going back to the original statute and this statute can be harmonized but it has not yet been harmonized and believe he said it was a twilight zone of federal tribal and state law and then when he granted the motion to stay the injunction he stated it was unclear what the reach of one of seven be regulatory jurisdiction is it's our position that one of seven a and b can easily be harmonized one of seven a and and i'm going to put it in the most simplified terms that the way that i understand it one of seventy eight deals with prohibited games games that the state of texas does not allow if you're not under repro hippa did games then you're in one of seven b where the tribe has been reserved it's civil and criminal regulatory jurisdiction so if the game is allowed by the state of texas then the tribes regulatory jurisdiction is its own and it is not the jurisdiction of the state of texas and that's a critical distinction because in one thousand nine hundred and eighty the voters of the state of texas pass constitutional amendment that allowed for being go to exist bingo is a permitted game under texas law it is not prohibited it takes it out of one of the seven a and puts it into one of seven beat the words prohibit in one of seven a or what a plots to the extent that is later won and the the language that states that texas law is a surrogate federal law over gaming we agree that it is surrogate federal law in terms of prohibited games but if you read it as the state would have you read it and admittedly as some lower courts have read it if you read it to say that all texas laws and regulations are a surrogate federal law over gaming activities then we would submit there's nothing for one hundred and seven b to do there's nothing left there's no regulatory jurisdiction left and congress specifically reserved that regulatory jurisdiction and within the tribes sovereignty and if congress put it in there there's a reason for it secondly the x aspect of the regulatory regime for the state of texas let me start this part over because i think it's what i was seven b has yet to be explained by the state or by the courts in any other way t explanations that the state has given a different times one has been that it's a venue provision that doesn't work then use in one of the seven c and it's a clear venue provision and in fact it's not only clearly a new provision it also references one  f under the restoration act which is the other venue provision there is nothing in one of seven b to reference a venue it's not about venue it's a power jurisdiction it's who has the power to regulate desk the key piece of it one of seven b is also as the other's distaste other explanation is well it's just a restatement of public law to eighty well there is no just a restatement of public law to  reservation of the tribes sovereign power the stay with the district court's help in certain respects has tried to chip away at the tribe sovereignty by ignoring subsection b but it's there for a reason and that's why we're here before this court is to try to figure out what exactly does it mean what does it mean in the eyes of this court because it's laid out one doesn't answer the question is l dealt with las vegas style games it dealt with prohibited games keno poker craps full style casino games that's not what we're talking about here we are talking about bingo and doing to support one of the state's next organist they're going to say well the way that you're doing bingo doesn't work the way that you're doing being you violates texas law but that's not what the found below what the trial court found below and what the decision turned on in order one hundred and eighty three and the injunction that followed from it was all from the texas occupations code that's the texas been going a bling act that's regulation hasn't been found and not be bingo how far it goes and regulating it they have relied on his land want they've relied on quote surrogate federal law that argument doesn't work because otherwise all gaming would be subject to all of texas regulations therefore reading subsection one of seven be out of the restoration act being the only thing and yes your own machines  to be in full disclosure to the court in the states original unamended complaints they complained about the machines that are being used to play the bingo and they complained about it under chapter forty seven dollars to say that they are all but slot machine up in all of these cases however that is not in the record that these were actually slot machines these are being go based games and they're bingo games and that part was never established by them and again that's why i asked the court if that's the in this and have that fight if they want to say this is not being go i welcome that i welcome that dispute it is our position this is being go they may not like the way it looks they may not like the bells and whistles and we've talked about that that's been before this court that's been for the trial courts and consistently the courts have found that just how it looks or what it does or whether it's got reals or bells or buzzers does not make it illegal per se doesn't please the courts in american for the state of texas the judgment of the district court should be affirmed for two reasons st you slot a one squarely held that under the restoration act gaming provisions which were agreed to by the public as a condition necessary to obtain restoration of their federally recognized status texas gaming laws and regulations apply on the lands of the last year in alabama has shot a panel of this court reiterated them this court denied a request to hear that case on bomb and the united states supreme court denied cert so because this court is bound by the between the restoration act and egress so the court there determined that because the statutes cannot be reconciled the restoration act applies to the tribes gaming and is the court in alabama  recognize there's nothing in use to suggest that it is limited to the class three game that the tribe zero was attempting to engage in their additionally my friend made  forms of charitable bingo are permitted in texas but he is wrong that texas does not prohibit gambling as a matter of public policy and as this court  the the western district of texas in his letter to which this court affirmed held that doesn't mean that the tribe does not have to comply with regulations so the distinction state of texas it does not say that texas gaming regulations are therefore an enforceable against the tribe in a perceiving and federal court that the restoration act specifically authorizes in subsections seat to enforce both the gaming laws and regulations of the state of texas which i the regulations are not only have some effect in a court proceeding or as a general matter they are not with respect to the tribe under the restoration not and the way that it was set up to ensure the tribes subsection about regulatory jurisdiction and i'm quoting it is subsection that determines whether texas prohibits certain gaming activities and then the court looked to be text of subsection  as defined by the laws and administrative regulations of the state of texas shall be prohibited on the tribes reservation so given that subsection a's prohibitory language explicitly congress and the tribe intended for the tribes game texas gaming laws and regulations to operate as surrogate federal law on the tribes reservation in texas so given your slot on one there's really nothing there's there's no need to litigate real and again this issue the tribe is bound to follow texas regulation and i think that the enforcement mechanism under subsection c alluded kates this a little bit because it says the courts of the united states shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any offense in violation of subsection a so that's just making it clear that for these two tribes covered by the restoration act federal courts and not texas regulators are the ones who are in forcing texas law judge martinez below was not sitting as a regulator when he enjoins the tribe from activities that violate both texas law and texas regulations and so subsection c continues nothing in this section shall be construed as precluding the state of texas from bringing an action in the courts of the united states to enjoin violations of the provisions of this section so obviously congress believes that this regulatory jurisdiction language would work alongside enforcement mechanism that it provided for in subsection seek federal courts are enforcing and texas regulators are not and the alabama has shot a court in fact holding it texas gaming laws and regulations operate as surrogate federal law on the reservations of restoration act tribes in texas this court was pushed to revisit t bonk and it declined that invitation i'd also like to turn to the discussion that my colleague had with the court regarding the occupation's code the occupations code is very much a law it is very much a statute it is the big enabling act sure but it is not merely bagul atory there are regulations that in force and administer the provisions of that law but it is very much a law and so i would hope to just make clear that merely because the bingo enabling act has some civil in force and mechanisms rather than criminal does not make does not take it outside of the laws of the state of texas and judge martina's below found violations both of those statutes those laws codified in the occupations code as well as implementing regulations so it boils down to the best colorable argument that the tribe offers is that it's not clear what impact section one of seven b has on gaming and this jurisdiction to enforce those prohibition no i'd like to turn to the nd argument raised by the tribe which is that they are engaged in a class to gaming i would i would dollars is a d v d of an inspection of the tribes gaming facility and the latter record cites are photos and descriptions of the machines included by judge martinez in his summary judgment order and i think that that will also be helpful to the court in framing what exactly is going on here because we hear a lot about bingo and that conjures images of sort of ladies on a sunday with their daughters stamping carts and that is not what's going on here this is a massive facility with machines that do resemble slot machines and our argument is not based upon the fact that they look  slot machines but i think that it helps illustrate kind of that the word being go by itself isn't what makes the the legal determination in terms of the activities permissibility in the state of texas but turning back to the class two versus class three issue it doesn't matter for purposes of the question before the court because it is settled that the restoration act controls you slide a one word check to the idea that the restoration act and it could be harmonized finding them fundamentally incompatible in particular it consider the enforcement mechanism in  subsection c finding the state's right to pursue injunctive relief in federal court fundamentally at odds with the concepts of egress the federal regulatory structure that that established the govern the determination of whether gaming activities are a lot under texas law alabama has shot a confirmed this as cited on the pages eight in nine of our brief the court reaffirmed that the restoration act and the texas law it invokes and not a graph and here's the important part govern the permissibility of gaming operations on the lands of the tribes so the is what controls so it doesn't apply to vs cost theory is immaterial and alabama has shot a held restoration acts for gaming provisions not provide the framework for deciding finally i'd like to talk about turn back to the occupations code and explain a little bit about how the statutes are working there because opposing counsel presentations seem to suggest that the bingo enabling act is a lesser category of law and it is not in fact chapter forty seven of the texas penal code it prohibits gambling is a defense to prosecution under chapter forty seven that the conduct is authorized by the bingo enabling act so those are exceptions to a criminal probe bishan so they are very much essential in terms of compliance for the restoration  seven b is a restriction on the ability of the state to regulate gaming by the tribe that's what it says and it's never been addressed it's never been clarified and what is late to one said which was that texas laws and regulations or a surrogate federal law or gaming cannot apply all the way for all regulations because otherwise one of seven b is surplusage so it has to mean something what i've submitted to th  court is what i believe the intent was which is that one of seventy eight dollars talks about prohibited games and as little one would be correct in terms of prohibited games all texas laws and regulations apply but as for non proven it games you're in one o seven b as for her argument regarding the travel resolution i'm happy to discuss that the travel resolution was adopted prior to the restoration x passage in fact it was adopted during the th congress when they were trying to get a version of the restoration act passed and the travel resolution yet said similar to what she said it said it said there's got to be not that there are going to be no gaming no bingo it how don't want a list of the games we're not going to do it that's what the this is the gaming that is prohibited the thing is the th congress let that bill die it did not pass and the restoration act as passed by congress didn't pass until the one hundred and it did two things it's got to mean something order one hundred and eighty three does exactly what we've been worried that it will do it chips away at the tribe sovereignty because it says it i think i think with all due respect to opposing counsel i think she just said this she said again all of texas laws and regulations apply being unable to act applies to texas occupation code act applies whatever we think applies a plots within what is one of seven b therefore there is no other explanation you can't reserve the tribes sovereignty in one respect and then have the state over a series of twenty five years chip away at it chip away at it chip away at at it until we're here where we are today pockets every bit of it that's not what the restoration act talks about that's not what the trouble resolution has the best thing to do with this because what we can assume is that congress with the intended to pass and what they omitted they intended to omit the travel resolution is referenced it's not incorporated and the tribe resolution as this panel pointed out in a previous opinion that what the tribal resolution was asking for is a question of fact that is not exactly conceded it was asking to restore the federal trust relationship we had mitt that was it willing to suffer some conditions at the time it was but that's not the compromise congress ended up rich rich and that's the difference honors i am always taught to go back to the actual statute right one o seven b states in its entirety caps title no state regulatory jurisdiction nothing in this section shall be construed as a grant of civil or criminal regulatory jurisdiction to the state of texas one of seventy deals with prohibited games everything else is under the tribes