honorable united states court of appeals for the st circuit is now in session all persons having any business before this honorable court make if there are tenants and they shall be heard god save the united states of america and this honorable court court is yes in that st appeal you presented three issues to the court what is your best argument as to which issue contained in your brief reflects that you were also appealing the town regulations to your direct question do we piddled the misapprehension of judge sailor regarding this narrow definition of those laws that authorize particular poems again to the exclusion of all other laws rather congress and the enactment of engro created comprehensive regulatory scheme that in that involved a myriad of aspects involving a tribe hidden in the business and governing gaming activities on any on its indian lands and  mention the word in your st issue regarding gaming on a queen of island i mean the indian lands cheat you you intended that to be in compas ing of everything and i think that goes right to the core  scheme the congress established in the passage of the indian gaming regulatory act and is even more expressively manifested in both the regulations of the national indian gaming commission and in the federal minimum requirements that the tribe complies with in terms of putting it into its own gaming code as to the manner in which these facilities will be constructed occupied and operate the data that is out the fact that the fact that the district court separated specifically gaming from regulatory local ordinances you didn't think it was necessary to at least address the local ordinances or at least indicate in your briefing that you were intending to cover them and since the court had addressed them separately well two points you know that this be the nation between gaming laws narrowly defined and general regulatory laws probably to foreign wasn't done in the two thousand and fifteen holder that appeared for the st time in the two thousand and nineteen o rice versus rain or in which the supreme court ruled that service of alcohol is not an inherent exercise a sovereign authority governs alcohol service so we would have to work is there or is there any conflict between local non gaming ordinances regulations and any regulations that the federal government has approved  whether there has to be housing for employees what the design is whether it's consistent with the character anyway in the other aspect that's so broad that that there where where the federal laws says you know if you meet w basically say you cannot even begin in less we less you allow us to interfere all these different aspects in the way which would instruct our design or builder operator i'm not sure i heard for example if they say you say capacity say five watts something has to be five watts under the town law and has to be three watts under the the tribal law proved by the federal government you could comply with both even though they're different and even though the town line would prohibit you from operating if you only satisfy the tribal but believe that would be accomplished that interferes with the tribes ability to exercise and when the tuna tribe meets its federal requirements and the town says that's not good enough we're going to to restrict your right to gain by imposing these prevention which is what you have here even parallel state or local statutes are not are not to be applied and to allow them to be applied here conflict there is town law says no commercial activities except on those lands that are owned by the town of the coin itself and so they the tribe would be violat you your honor i want to pick up with the substance of mr karl's argument because the substance of the argument is exactly what was litigated before the district court in the st go round and if you look in particular  seeks to do without complying with either the commonwealth gaming was which were the focus of the last appeal or any state or local regulatory requirements whether they relate to gaming or not let me let me change the subject slightly under the present situation do the towels zoning ordinances apply to  v yes odd because of the settlement act which a lot which says that the local regulatory laws apply on the indian lands in the town just as such as the zoning zoning plan i can be used to prevent gaming specifically in other words i think what he said was to do indirectly what he grew up prevents the town from doing directly the district court made very clear seven of the joint appendix the district court made clear that he did not see any evidence of such a pretext here but invited the tried to come back if it had any evidence that local law was being manipulated to prevent gaming from being conducted as a group as this course prior opinion would allow but that doesn't mean that neutral generally applicable laws don't apply and that is the concept that the tribe resists the tribe couple to the indian lands in the town which is different from what might might be true you know other tribal what other tribal lands you know other states that don't have a specific settlement statute so the only question is to what extent did it repeal impliedly that grant regulatory authority to the town of course also the commonwealth so yes oh yes my answer is yes all local laws apply on the town was in the abstract so in laws are not categorically repealed by the federal act and so they can be applied with several caviar one is if you had a zoning rule that said no gaming but that's no good and secondly if you took a facially neutral zoning one and potentially applied it in a way to prevent gaming then that would be no used could be conducted through the zoning laws and i guess i jumped straight to the nd one in pointing out that the district court and said that there is no such indirect attack here and that invited the tried if it ever had evidence of that  think under your argument as to what they waived by not arguing in the st appeal as i understand it you're not maintaining that the tribe has is precluded now from when it goes through and fifty two thousand and twenty six they're appealing all six the notice of appeal as with any notice of appeal it simply says that they are appealing from the final judgment that's right but the question under this court's cases like matthews  is what did they then pursue in the appeal not what to know what they put in the notice of appeal and i didn't find in judge thompson's question to my friend brought this out the identified only three issues but three specific orders from which they were appealing that is in their opening brief in the last appeal in those three words were the summary judgment opinion the denial of reconsideration and the ruling on the rule nineteen motion about not whether the gaming commission was necessary party nothing about the it may i take this court you have said that it is comprehensive with respect to gaming we're not here before this panel taking issue with that but it is not comprehensive with respect to every aspect of  activities that might surround gaming on tribal lands at narragansett i think makes that very clear by saying that it was not speaking to whether for example zoning or traffic control might remain the subject of local law now by friends of the other side say that what rights is a tribe keep after this case in this case so we start with the statute that is specific to this tribe the settlement act which which allows all of the state and local permitting requirements to remain in force on tribal land which was part of the settlement and more or less in the statute then congress passes it and i think it's important to note at this point that it only yes that it that is something that if they apply uniformly throughout the town to all to everyone who built a building tribal and non tribal alike that's exactly the kind of requirement that is a neutral generally applicable rule on that is applied throughout the town is going to apply on the settlement lands just as it applied anywhere else what part of the operation of the casino do you have a say as to sarah the reason my answer is no your honor is because the actual regulation of the deal of the game and i think it's important to remember that this is class two gaming which is bingo but where else if it were no we're not claiming any authority to regulate the actual conduct of the gaming and i think that's your question is an excellent excellent example of something that we would not claim authority over precisely because that is an area where it is a detail federal see no or a nightclub you know our performance space you know or a large commercial building the town's interest in relating to feel guilty of parking the environmental impact of clear cutting space for parking and the impact on traffic on the i think you could see though the any one of those that you just mentioned regulations could be applied in a way with a wink wink that effectively precludes a successful operation of a casino in which they don't provide enough parking spaces so you can't have you could have a certain volume of people there to make the casino successful so how to to go back to judge throwaways questions i assume when that happen gaming facilities within the regulatory scheme that's defacing and a beach interrupt you can we make sure that just with his hearing the judge to wait i think the microphone on the side of your headphone needs to swing down in front of your face there's a microphone on the side judge if that's ok sorry no that's good thank you judge i'm going to let attorney crowd continue to begin this republic very good if there are there is a reason the congress intended to put construction occupation in operation the game facilities doesn't it apply to tribal lands where there is no settlement agreement and where there is no right of the local community to regulate on the tech tribal lands  minimum regulations having to do with construction operation of the casino then you would have some casinos with no one regulated i don't think that would be the case in reality you would  addressing that in fact most tribes in those circumstances adopted laws that tribal laws the meter exceed foundries but there's a whole lot much larger universe of tribes that were in existence in the passage of that were subject to public law to eighty which conquest i guess what i'm getting at is if you're sitting in congress it's one thing to say we're going to make sure there are some laws so here are these federal ones that apply to all of them but it's another thing to say and for those where the tribe has agreed that local law will apply we're going to preempt that and yet not say it seems odd that congress would take such a step without saying well you know i believe that they they in fact did that in the site from the from the senate report site from who sponsored so the bill of their intention categorical test but we don't think that works it instead it's going to be the slow slog of going through issue by issue as applied if there are what i hear you basically saying is forget about that there's a categor test that can't be any town regulation now that i'm sorry i came across that way i don't think that's that's the case i think you know nobody's disputing now there if you're preempted those laws that authorize where you draw those foreign warrants of those issues that are at the edge what we're arguing is near against it's correct about that but when the subject matter here this is something that's clearly within the regulatory scheme established by congress in the construction operation in occupancy of the given operation your clear example of that the man at the nets is fully on the side of the law on the examples that the the th congress comprehensive regulatory scheme and those where where you you have this difficult debate as to whether it is worth is not included but sounds all that time and then sure i understand what you just said so you're saying sums owning laws could apply to the construction of this casino the hypothetical certainly isn't in front of us but if there's at other than then there blanket law that says no commercial you know there's this debate that's been long lasting in indian country between states and tribes as to whether that's to be included is gaming related well not so you know those so there are there are certainly issues to where that fine you know this kind of facility can only operate between can until the notion that there's or well we're going to compare you do to everybody else in the tribe is the only entity on the island in the currently within the state  activity which is why congress preempted the field which is why the supreme court reiterated in the n c a a case that when you occupy a field that means even if you've got a body of state law that you know  cuts just just one more point of clarification at least so right now you're asking us to concern ourselves with the facility itself and we'll take up whether housing is included or  the edges of preemptive field you know i think that that you know that that could be resolved in later litigation we would hope that we would never get to that point because st you know you still can have a government to government communications like have the ability to go to the club again an agency which is that independent highly qualified regulatory you know the federal national committee and gaming commission which has jurisdiction to ensure that the tribes facility is constructed and also have jurisdiction they have remedies but but what they're trying to do is impose their will on the tribe in a manner that's going to kill the game of the soul thank you