Governor Risa 

Y sleta del Sur Pueblo 

119 S. Old Pueblo Rd. 

Y sleta del Sur Pueblo, TX 79907 

October 5, 2015 

RE: Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Class II Tribal Gaming Ordinance and Resolution No. TC-021-14. 

Dear Governor Risa: 

This letter responds to the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo's August 17, 2015, request through its 

attorneys, Johnson, Barnhouse & Keegan, to the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) to 

review and approve the Pueblo's amendments to its Class II gaming ordinance. The 

amendments to the gaming ordinance were adopted by Resolution No. TC-021-14 by the Ysleta 

del Sur Pueblo Tribal Council. 

Resolution No. TC-021-14 revises the Pueblo's current gaming ordinance to reflect the 

changes in the NIGC regulations in the last twenty years and to seek NIGC regulation of its 

bingo operations in light of federal case law. 1 Because the Pueblo's ordinance permits it to 

conduct gaming on its Indian lands, 2 

an analysis of whether its lands are eligible for gaming was 

necessary. 

Analysis 

The Pueblo asserts in the ordinance that it has the authority to regulate Class II gaming on 

its Tribal Lands under IGRA.3 It defines Tribal Lands, or alternatively Pueblo Lands, as all lands 

within the limits of the Pueblo's Reservation. 4 The Pueblo defines Reservation5 as it is defined in 

the Pueblo's Restoration Act. 6 

1 Yslela de/ Sur Pueblo v. State of Texas, 36 F.3d 1325 (5th Cir. 1994). 2 Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo Class II Tribal Gaming Ordinance § 5. 3 Id. § 2.1 4 Id. § 4.31. 

5 Id. § 4.37. 

6 25 U.S.C. § 1300g(3) ("the term 'reservation' means lands within El Paso and Hudspeth Counties, Texas- (A) 

held by the tribe on August 18, 1987; (B) held in trust by the State or by the Texas Indian Commission for the 

benefit of the tribe on August 18, 1987; (C) held in trust for the benefit of the tribe by the Secretary under section 

NEW MAILING ADDRESS: NIGC/DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 1849 C Slreet NW, Mail Stop# 1621 Washington, DC 20240 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.63 2.7066 

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa OK; Oklahoma City, OK 

WWW. NIGC.GOV 
Governor Hisa 

October 5, 2015 

Page 2of4 

As discussed in greater detail below, the Tribal lands specified in the ordinance 

amendment are Indian lands as defined by IGRA and are eligible for gaming under the Act. 

However, the Restoration Act provides a general grant of state jurisdiction over the Pueblo's 

lands, through Public Law 280,7 and specifically applies state gaming laws to the Pueblo s 

lands, 8 with a caveat. 9 Accordingly the Restoration Act must be taken into consideration as part 

of this ordinance review. 

Fw-ther, because the definition in the Pueblo's ordinance incorporates the Restoration Act 

and the Secretary of the Interior administers tribal restoration acts 10 the NJGC Office of General 

Counsel sought the Department oflnterior, Office of the Solicitor's opinion as to whether under 

the Restoration Act the Pueblo can game pursuant to IGRA on its Indian lands; specifically, 

whether the Pueblo possesses sufficient jurisdiction over its Restoration Act lands for IGRA to 

apply and if so, how to interpret the interface between IGRA and the Restoration Act. 11 

Jurisdiction 

First, we must first examine the scope of IGRA to determine whether it has jurisdiction 

over the Pueblo's Restoration Act lands or phrased alternatively, whether the Pueblo's 

Restoration Act lands are exempt from IGRA's domain. In keeping with IGRA's purpose to 

establish federal standards for gaming on Indian lands and an independent federal regulatory 

authority for gaming on Indian lands, 12 NIGC has jurisdiction with over gaming on Indian lands. 

However, Congress can prohibit tribes from gaming under IGRA by exempting them 

from IGRA's scope. For instance, Congress explicitly stated IGRA did not apply to the Catawba 

Indian Tribe of South Carolina when it ratified its settlement agreement with the Catawba. 13 And 

Congress amended the Narragansett Tribe's settlement act to specifically exclude its settlement 

1300g--4(g)(2) of this title; and (D) subsequently acquired and held in trust by the Secretary for the benefit of the 

tribe."). 

7 25 U.S.C. § 1300g-4(f) ("[Texas] shall exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction within the boundaries of the 

reservation as if such State had assumed such jurisdiction with the consent of the tribe under 

sections 1321and1322 of this title."). 

8 25 U.S.C. § 1300g-6(a) ("All gaming activities which are prohibited by the laws of the State of Texas are hereby 

prohibited on the reservation and on lands of the tribe. Any violation of the prohibition provided in this subsection 

shall be subject to the same civil and criminal penalties that are provided by the laws of the State of Texas.'). 

9 25 U.S.C. § 1300g-6(b) (''Nothing in this section shall be construed as a grant of civil or criminal regulatory 

jurisdiction to the State of Texas."). 10 Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Maine, 75 F.3d 784, 794 (1st Cir. 1994) ("Deference is appropriate under Chevron only 

when an agency interprets a statute that it administers. Here, the question of the Gaming Act's applicability cannot 

be addressed in a vacuum, and the [NIGC], whatever else might be its prerogatives, does not administer the 

Settlement Act. That role belongs to the Secretary of the Interior .... "). 11 May 29, 2015, Letter to Deputy Solicitor, Indian Affairs Venus Prince from NIGC General Counsel, Eric N. 

Shepard. 

12 25 U.S.C. § 2702(3) (2012). 13 25 U.S.C. § 94ll(a). 
Governor Hisa 

October 5, 2015 

Page 3of4 

lands from IGRA, 14 after the First Circuit found IGRA applied. 15 Finally, Congress exempted the 

Maine tribes - Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, and Maliseet- from all federal Indian legislation 

enacted after their settlement act, including IGRA, unless Congress makes those laws 

specifically applicable 16 which IGRA did not. 17 In contrast to those examples, the Pueblo's 

Restoration Act does not explicitly prohibit IGRA's authority over the Pueblo. Further, nothing 

in IGRA's legislative history indicates that the Pueblo is outside the scope ofNIGC's 

jurisdiction. As such, the NIGC has broad jurisdiction over the Pueblo. 

Next, the Solicitor's Office concurred with our conclusion that IGRA applies to the 

Pueblo and further opined the Pueblo possesses sufficient legal jurisdiction over its settlement 

lands for IGRA to apply, that IGRA governs gaming on the Pueblo's reservation, and IGRA 

impliedly repeals the portions of the Restoration Act repugnant to IGRA. 18 Therefore, the only 

remaining questions are whether those lands qualify as Indian lands as defined in IGRA and 

whether they are eligible for gaming. 

Indian Lands 

IGRA permits an lndian Tribe to 'engage in or license and regulate gaming on Indian 

lands with such Tribe's jurisdiction. " 19 It defines Indian lands as all lands with the limits of any 

Indian Reservation. 20 In 1987 the Restoration Act established a reservation for the Pueblo,

21 

comprised of the Pueblo's land holdings at that time.22 Because the Pueblo has a reservationestablished a year before Congress passed IGRA - the Pueblo has IGRA-defined Indian lands. 

Further, the Pueblo identified in its ordinance that it authorizes gaming on its Tribal lands -

defined as all lands within the limits of its Reservation. The Pueblo's ordinance limits where it 

can operate a class II gaming facility to its established reservation. Accordingly, the Restoration 

Act lands qualify as Indian lands under IGRA. 

Finally, because the Pueblo's Restoration Act, which created the reservation, pre-dates 

IGRA, an after-acquired land analysis is not necessary.

23 

Conclusion 

14 25 U.S.C. § l 708(b). 

15 Rhode island v. Narragansett, 19 F.3d 685, 697-700(lst Cir. 1994). 16 25 U.S.C. § 173 S(b ). 17 Passamaquoddy Tribe v. State of Me., 75 F.3d 784 (1st Cir. 1996). 18 September I 0, 2015, Letter to NlGC General Counsel, Michael Hoenig, from Deputy Solicitor for Indian Affairs, 

Venus McGhee Prince. (Attachment A.) 19 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(l). 20 25 U.S.C. § 2703(4)(A); 25 C.F.R. § 502.12(a): "Indian lands means: (a) Land within the limits of an Indian 

reservation." 

21 25 U.S.C. § 1300g-4(a) 22 25 U.S.C. § 1300g (3). 23 See generally 25 U.S.C. § 2719. 
Governor Hisa 

October 5, 2015 

Page 4of4 

In conclusion, because the Pueblo possesses sufficient legal jurisdiction over its 

Restoration Act lands, IGRA applies. Further, because the lands qualify as Indian lands under 

IGRA, the lands are eligible for gaming under IGRA. 

Thank you for bringing the amended gaming ordinance to our attention. The ordinance is 

approved, as it is consistent with the requirements of IGRA and NIGC regulations. 

If you have any questions, please contact staff attorney Heather Corson at (202) 632-

7003. 

Sincerely 

r- J/)~ Jonodev 0 . Chaudhuri 

Enclosure 

cc: Randolph H. Barnhouse 

Johnson, Barhouse, & Keegan (via email, only: rbarnhouse@indiancountrylaw.com) 
United States Department of the Interior 

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR 

Washington. D.C. 20240 

1~; lll ol'I.\ HLI l·I< I fJ 

Michael Hoenig, General Counsel 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

90 K Street NE, Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20002 

SEP 1 0 2015 

Re: Ysleta de! Sur Pueblo Restoration Act 

Dear Mr. Hoenig: 

This letter responds to the National Indian Gaming Conunission ("NIGC ) Office of General 

Counsel's letter dated May 29, 2015, 1 requesting our opinion regarding whether, in light of the 

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act 

("Restoration Act" or "Act"), 2 and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA"), 3 the Y sleta del 

Sur Pueblo ("Tribe" or "Pueblo") can game pursuant to the IGRA on the Tribe's reservation and 

tribal lands. 

Applying the Department's expertise in the field oflndian affairs,4 this Office concludes that the 

Restoration Act did not divest the Tribe of jurisdiction over its reservation and tribal lands and, 

therefore, that the IGRA applies to such lands. In addition, we conclude that the IGRA impliedly 

repealed Section 107 of the Restoration Act, which concerns gaming. 

I. BACKGROUND 

In order to answer your question, we must interpret those provisions of the Restoration Act that 

concern jurisdiction, including jurisdiction over gaming. The Restoration Act was enacted in the 

midst of a sea change in gaming law; consequently, our analysis also considers the evolution of 

the Act's gaming provisions, the evolution of gaming law in the State of Texas ("Texas" or 

"State") between 1987 and 1991, and the enactment approximately one year after the Restoration 

Act of the IGRA. Finally, we evaluate the Tribe's current request in light of the long-running 

litigation between the State and the Tribe over the Tribe's attempts to game within the bounds of 

the Restoration Act. 

1 Letter !Tom Eric Shepard, General Counsel, Nat' I Indian Gaming Comm' n, to Venus Prince, Deputy Solicitor -

Indian Affairs (May 29, 2015) [hereinafter "2015 NIGC Letter"]. 

2 Pub. L. No. I 00-89, I 0 I Stat. 666 (I 987) (codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 731 et seq. (Alabama and Coushatta Indian 

Tribes of Texas),§§ 1300g et seq. (Ysleta del Sur Pueblo)). Title I ofthe Restoration Act addresses the Pueblo; 

Title II of the Restoration Act restores the Federal trust relationship with the Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes 

ofTexas. Id 

3 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Pub. L. No. I 00-497, I 02 Stat. 2467 ( 1988) (codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721 ). 

4 See, e.g., Cherokee Nation v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 467, 479 n.7 (2006) (observing that "the Secretary [of the 

Interior] certainly has vast expertise in interpreting Indian statutes"). 

Attachment A 
A. History of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 

The Pueblo of Ysleta del Sur was established in 1680 following the Pueblo Indian revolt against 

the Spanish.5 When the Spanish retreated from Santa Fe, New Mexico, to El Paso, Texas, they 

forced a large number ofTiwa Indians from Ysleta Pueblo to accompany them.6 The Indians 

established a new Pueblo in Texas called Ysleta del Sur and, in 1682, built a church for their 

community. 7 In 1751, Spain granted to the inhabitants of the Y sleta del Sur Pueblo land 

measuring one league in all directions from the church doors. 8 However, in 1871, the Texas 

Legislature enacted a statute incorporating the Town of Ysleta in El Paso County, and 

subsequent actions by the town resulted in nearly all of the 23,000 acres of the Spanish land 

grant being patented to non-Indians. 9 

From 1870 through the 1960s, the Tribe "continued to reside in the area and maintain their ethnic 

identification as well as their basic political system . . . . Also during this time there is a record 

of increasing interactions between the [Tribe] and both the U.S. Government and the State of 

Texas."10 In 1968, Congress passed An Act Relating to the Tiwa Indians of Texas, 1

1 wherein 

Congress transferred all Federal trust responsibility for the Pueblo to the State of Texas. 12 

8. The Restoration Act 

In the 1980s, the State of Texas concluded that its trust relationship with the Tribe constituted a 

violation of the Texas Constitution and determined that the State could not continue to provide 

trust services to the Tribe. 13 In light of this determination, Congress acted to restore the Federal 

trust relationship with the Tribe and passed the Restoration Act in 1987. 14 Through the 

Restoration Act, Congress provided that the Tiwa Indians of Ysleta, Texas, would thereafter "be 

known and designated as the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo,''15 and "restored" "[t]he Federal trust 

relationship between the United States and thetribe." 16 In addition, the Restoration Act 

designated as "a Federal Indian reservation" those lands within El Paso and Hudspeth Counties 

in Texas that were held by the Tribe on the date of the Act's enactment, held in trust by the State 

or by the Texas Indian Commission for the benefit of the Tribe, or held in trust by the Secretary 

for the benefit of the Tribe, as well as subsequently acquired lands acquired and held in trust by 

s S. Rep. No. l 00-90, at 6 ( 1987) (hereinafter, "1987 Senate Report"). 

6 Id 

7 131 CONG. REC. Hl2012 (daily ed. Dec. 16, 1985) (statement of Rep. Coleman). 

8 1987 Senate Report, supra note 5, at 6. 9 Id at?. 

10 131 CONG. REC. Hl2012 (statement of Rep. Coleman). 

11 Pub. L. No. 90-287, 82 Stat. 93 ( 1968), repealed by Restoration Act, supra note 2, § I 06. 

12 Id 

13 1987 Senate Report, supra note 5, at 7. 

14 Restoration Act, supra note 2. 

is Id. at§ 102 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300g-I). 

16 Jd. at§ 103(a) (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300g-2(a)). 

2 

Attachment A 
the Secretary for the benefit of the Tribe, 17 and mandated that the Secretary take certain lands 

into trust for the benefit of the Tribe. 18 Furthermore, at Section 105(f) the Act incorporates 

Public Law 280, 19 as amended by the Indian Civil Rights Act,20 by providing that the State has 

civil and criminal jurisdiction on the Tribe's reservation "as if such State had assumed such 

jurisdiction with the consent of the tribe under" 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321-1322.21 

The original version of the Restoration Act, introduced in February 1985, contained no specific 

references to gaming.22 However, the time between the bill's introduction and its final passage 

in 1987 was a period of great uncertainty surrounding Indian gaming. 23 The Act was amended 

multiple times to address gaming. 24 

17 Id at§ 105(a) (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300g-4(a)) (establishing a Federal Indian reservation); at§ 101(3) 

(codified at 25 U.S.C. § I 300g(3)) (defining "reservation"). 

18 Id. at§ 105(b)(l) (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300g-4(b)) (requiring that the Secretary (1) accept any offer by the 

State to convey to the United States land within the Tribe's reservation held in trust, and (2) hold such land in trust 

for the benefit of the Tribe). 

19 Pub. L. 83-280, 67 Stat. 588 ( 1953) 

20 Pub. L. 90-284, 82 Stat 77 ( 1968). 

21 Restoration Act, supra note 2, § 105(f) (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300g-4(f)). 

22 H.R. 1344, 99th Cong. (1985). 

23 In February 25, I 986, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the State of California and Riverside 

County could not enforce their gaming laws on the reservations of the Cabazon and Morongo Bands of Mission 

Indians. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, 783 F.2d 900 ( 1986). One year later, the U.S. 

Supreme Court affirmed. California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) [hereinafter, 

"Cabazon"]. The Fifth Circuit subsequently observed that the Cabazon decision "led to an explosion in unregulated 

gaming on Indian reservations located in states that, like California, did not prohibit gaming." Ys/eta de/ Sur Pueblo 

v. Texas, 36 F.3d 1325, 1330 (5th Cir. 1994) [hereinafter "Ys/eta de/ Sur"]; accord Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, 

784 F.3d 1076, 1080 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The Court's decision in Cabazon led to a flood of activity, and states and 

tribes clamored for Congress to bring some order to tribal gaming."). 

24 Following a committee hearing on October 1985, the House passed an amended version of the bill that would 

have allowed the Tribe to enact a gaming ordinance, but only ifthat ordinance mirrored the laws of Texas. H. Rep. 

No. 99-440, at 2-3 (I 985)(amendments to H.R. 1344); 131 CONG. REc. H 12012 (daily ed. Dec. 16, I 985)(text of 

H.R. 1344 as passed by the House). Nonetheless, "various state officials and members of Texas' congressional 

delegation were still concerned that H.R. 1344 did not provide adequate protection against high stakes gaming 

operations on the Tribe's reservation." Ysleta de/ Sur, 36 F.3d at 1327. As a result, the Tribe enacted Resolution 

No. TC-02-86, which acknowledged the controversy over gaming and asked, in part, that the bill be amended to 

prohibit "all gaming, gambling, lottery, or bingo, as defined by the laws and administrative regulations of the State 

of Texas, ... on the Tribe's reservation or tribal land." Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Resolution No. TC-02-86, reprinted 

in Ysleta de/ Sur, 36 F.3d at 1328 n.2. 

In accordance with the Tribe's request, the bill was amended again to prohibit "[a]ll gaming, gambling, lottery or 

bingo as defined by the laws and administrative regulations of the State of Texas ... on the tribe's reservation and 

on tribal lands." 131 CONG. REC. S 13635 (daily ed. Sept. 24, 1986) (text of H.R. 1344, § 107(a) as passed by the 

Senate). That version passed the Senate. Id. However, the very next day, before it could be reconciled with the 

House version, the Senate vitiated its passage of the bill, effectively killing any restoration of the Ysleta del Sur 

Pueblo and the Alabama and Coushatta Tribes in the 99111 Congress. 131 CONG. REC. S 13735 (daily ed. Sept. 25, 

1986). 

A new version of the bill was introduced in January 1987, and subsequently was passed by the House; it, like the 

earlier Senate bill, would have expressly prohibited all gaming on the Tribe's reservation and tribal lands. 133 

CONG. REC. HI 3 735 (daily ed. Apr. 21, 1987). Later that year, the bill was amended again by the Senate, which 

deleted the express prohibition against gaming. 1987 Senate Report, supra note 5, at 3 (text ofH.R. 318, § 107(a) as 

amended by the Senate). The Senate's version ofH.R. 318 ultimately was enacted, with the gaming provisions 

contained in Section l 07. See Restoration Act, supra note 2, § 107. 

3 

Attachment A 
When the Restoration Act was enacted in 1987, Texas law generally prohibited gaming, with the 

exception of charitable bingo on a local-option basis.25 In the Restoration Act, the first sentence 

of Section 107(a) makes the State's substantive gaming laws applicable on the Tribe's lands. 

Similarly, the second sentence extends to the Tribe's lands the penalties provided in State law for 

engaging in prohibited gaming. The final sentence explains, at least in part, why Congress 

included gaming provisions in the Act. Thus, through Section I 07(a), Congress provided for a 

limited application of State gaming law on the Tribe's lands: 

SEC. 107. GAMING ACTIVITIES 

(a) IN GENERAL.-All gaming activities which are prohibited by the laws of the 

State of Texas are hereby prohibited on the reservation and on lands of the 

tribe. Any violation of the prohibition provided in this subsection shall be 

subject to the same civil and criminal penalties that are provided by the 

laws of the State of Texas. The provisions of this subsection are enacted 

in accordance with the Tribe's request in Tribal Resolution No. T.C.-02-

86 which was approved and certified on March 12, 1986. 26 

Despite the application of Texas law, however, Section 107(b) expressly states that"[n]othing in 

this section shall be construed as a grant of civil or criminal regulatory jurisdiction to the State of 

Texas."27 In other words, the Tribe retained civil and criminal regulatory jurisdiction over its 

reservation and tribal lands, except to the extent expressly divested by the following subsection 

of the Act. 

Finally, although another section of the Restoration Act generally ~ranted the State "civil and 

criminal jurisdiction within the boundaries of the reservation," 2 Section 107(c) expressly 

provides that federal courts, not state courts, are the forum in which the State may seek to 

enforce alleged violations of Section 107(a): 

(c) JURISDICTION OVER ENFORCEMENT AGAINST MEMBERS.-Notwithstanding 

section I OS(f), the courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction 

over any offense in violation of subsection (a) that is committed by the tribe, or by 

any member of the tribe, on the reservation or on lands of the tribe. However, 

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.29 

25 Tex. Const. art. 3, § 47(b)-(c) (as amended 1980). The Texas Constitution provided that "[t]e Legislature shall 

pass laws prohibiting the establishment of lotteries and gift enterprises in the State, as well as the sale of tickets in 

lotteries, gift enterprises, or other evasions involving the lottery principle, established or existing in other States." 

Jd._at art. 3, § 47(a). In addition, wagering on dog and horse racing in Texas had been illegal since 1937. Texas 

Legislative Council, Info. Rep. No. 87-2: Analysis of Proposed Constitutional Amendments and Referenda 

Appearing on the November 3, 1987, Ballot, at 75 (Sept. 1987). 26 Restoration Act, supra note 2, at§ 107(a) (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300g-6(a)). 

27 Id at§ 107(b) (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300g-6(b)). 

28 Id. at § I 05(f) (codified at 25 U.S.C. § I 300g-4(t)) (granting Texas civil and criminal jurisdiction equivalent to 

that granted by Public Law 83-280, 67 Stat. 588 (1953), as amended by the Indian Civil Rights Act, Pub. L. 90-284, 

82 Stat 77 (1968). 

29 Id at§ 107(c) (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1300g-6(c)). 

4 

Attachment A 
C. Gaming in Texas 

Almost immediately after the Restoration Act was enacted, Texas began to open itself up to 

gaming. On November 3, 1987-less than three months after the Restoration Act was enactedthe people of Texas by referendum ratified the Legislature's enactment of the Texas Racing Act, 

allowing for pari-mutuel dog and horse racing. 30 Two years later, the Texas Constitution was 

amended to allow for "charitable raffles. "

31 A more momentous change occurred in 1991, when 

the Texas Constitution was amended to permit certain lotteries.32 Texas now offers a variety of 

lottery games, including national Powerball and MegaMillions.33 Thus, while charitable bingo 

was the only gaming permitted in Texas at the time the Restoration Act was enacted, a little more 

than four years later the State had dramatically expanded gaming to include raffles, pari-mutuel 

racing, and a state lottery. In Fiscal Year 2014, Texas Lottery sales totaled almost $4.4 billion, 

returning more than $1.2 billion to the State's coffers.34 In addition, races at Texas racetracks 

generated more than $438 million in wagers during calendar year 2014.35 

D. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

The expansion of State-sanctioned gaming in Texas was not the only change to the legal 

landscape in the years immediately following enactment of the Restoration Act. On October 19, 

1988, a little more than one year after it enacted the Restoration Act, Congress enacted the 

IGRA. Among the IGRA 's stated purposes were to establish a new nationwide regulatory 

framework for tribal gaming on Indian lands within a tribe's jurisdiction,36 and to promote "tribal 

economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal govemments."37 

30 The Texas Racing Act {"Racing Act") was enacted by the Texas Legislature in 1986. Id However, the Racing 

Act provided that wagering could be conducted pursuant to its provisions only after it was ratified by the State's 

voters. Id. On November 3, 1987, the voters in Texas approved the Racing Act by a wide margin. Bill Christine, 

Texas Voters Finally End a 50-year Ban Against Belling on Horse Races, L.A. TIMES, Nov. 5, 1987, available at 

http://articles.latimes.com/ 1987-11-05/sports/sp-I 89 I l _I_ horse-racing-notes (last visited July 9, 2015). 

31 Tex. Const. art. 3, § 47(d) (as amended 1989). 

32 Tex. Const. art. 3, § 47(3) (as amended 1991). 

33 See Texas Lottery, Play the Games of Texas, http://www.txlottery.org/export/sites/lottery/Games/index.html (last 

viewed July 9, 2015). 

34 Texas Lottery Commission, Summary of Financial Information {undated; audited through FY2014, unaudited 

through March 2015), available at http://www.txlottery.org/export/sites/lottery/Documents/financial/MonthlyTransfer-Document.pdf (last visited July 9, 2015). 

3

s Texas Racing Commission, Texas Pari-Mutuel Racetracks Wagering Statistics Comparison Report on Total 

Wagers Placed in Texas & on Texas Races For the Period: OJI0//13- 12/3/113 to 0//0///4- 12131/14 at I 

(undated), available at http://www.txrc.texas.gov/agency/data/wagerstats/prevYr/20141231.pdf (last visited July 9, 

2015). 

36 See 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2702 {Congress's findings and declaration of policy),§ 2710 (governing tribal gaming 

ordinances); S. Rep. No. 100-446, at 6 { 1988) [hereinafter" 1988 Senate lGRA Report"] {IGRA "is intended to 

expressly preempt the field in the governance of gaming activities on Indian lands"); see also Wells Fargo Bank v. 

lake of the Torches, 658 F.3d 684, 687 {7th Cir. 2011) (finding that among the IGRA's "stated goals was "to create 

a comprehensive regulatory framework 'for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes"' {quoting 25 U.S.C. § 

2702{1)). Cf Rhode /slandv. Narragansell Indian Tribe, 19 F.3d 685, 689 {1st Cir. 1994) [hereinafter 

"Narragansetf'] {"The Gaming Act is an expression of Congress's will in respect to the incidence of gambling 

activities on Indian lands.") 37 25 u.s.c. § 2702(1). 

5 

Attachment A 
The vast majority of tribal gaming in the United States is governed under the IGRA's 

framework, which has proven to be enormously successful. The IGRA helped spur dramatic 

growth in Indian gaming, from annual revenues of approximately $100 million in 1988 to 

approximately $28.5 billion in 2014.38 Recent scholarship demonstrates that, as Congress 

intended, Indian gaming has helped strengthen tribal economies, increase household income for 

reservation Indians, and reduce reservation poverty and unemployment rates.39 

E. Gaming by the Y sleta del Sur Pueblo and Resulting Litigation 

Just as the public policy of the State of Texas with regard to gaming evolved in the years after 

the Restoration Act was enacted, so, too, did the public policy of Tribe. However, the Tribe's 

efforts to pursue gaming within the confines of the law have been thwarted at every turn by the 

State of Texas. 

1. Litigation over the Application of the IGRA 

On May 6, 1992, after Texas dramatically expanded the scope of gaming under State law, and 

ofter Congress enacted the IGRA to provide n comprehensive regulatory scheme for tribal 

gaming, the Tribe adopted a bingo ordinance.40 The Tribe submitted Tribal Bingo Ordinance 

00492 to the NIGC for approval, and on October 19, 1993, the ordinance was approved by the 

Chairman of the NIGC.4 In February 1992, the Tribe petitioned the Governor of Texas, 

pursuant to the IGRA, to begin negotiations to enter a class III gaming compact.42 The 

Governor, however, refused on the grounds that the State's law and public policy prohibited her 

from negotiating such a compact.43 As a result, the Tribe sued to compel the State under the 

provision of the IGRA that allowed the Federal courts to order a state to the negotiating table.44 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Restoration Act did not give the 

Tribe authority to bring such a suit and that the IGRA did not apply.45 

38 Compare 1988 Senate IGRA Report, supra note 36, at 22 (Indian gaming "generate[s] more than $100 million in 

annual revenues to tribes"), with Nat' I Indian Gaming Comm'n, Gaming Revenue Reporls, available at 

http://www.nigc.gov/Gaming_Revenue_Reports.aspx (last visited Aug. 21, 2015) (Indian gaming revenue $28.5 

billion in Fiscal Year 2014). 

39 Randall K.Q. Akee et al., The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and Its Effects on American Indian Economic 

Development, 29 J. ECON. PERSPECTIVES 185, 185-87, 196-99 (2015). In addition, the growth of Indian gaming in 

the wake of the IGRA has also proved to be a boon to local and state governments. Id at 199-203. 

40 Ysleta del Sur Tribal Bingo Ordinance No. 00492 (as amended on Oct. 16, 1992; April 15, 1993; July 22, 1993; 

and Oct. 5, 1993), available at 

http://www.nigc.gov/Portals/O/NIGC%20Uploads/readingroom/gamingordinances/ysletadelsurpueblotrbe/ordapprl0 

1993.pdf. 

41 Letter from Anthony J. Hope, Chainnan, NIGC, to Tom Diamond, counsel to the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (Oct. 19, 

1993). 

42 Yslela de/ Sur, 36 F.3d at 1331. 

43 Id 

44 25 U.S.C. § 27IO(d)(7)(8)(iii), abrogated by Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996). 

45 Ysleta de/ Sur, 36 F.3d 1325. The Fifth Circuit's opinion in Ys/eta de/ Sur, which was filed approximately seven 

months after the First Circuit filed its opinion in Narragansett, is discussed in greater depth in Part II, infra. 

6 

Attachment A 
The question before the Fifth Circuit was whether the IGRA permitted the Tribe to sue the State 

for refusing to negotiate a Class III gaming compact.46 The Fifth Circuit held that the 

Restoration Act, and not the IGRA, governed the dispute and, finding nothing in the Restoration 

Act that waived the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity, the court reversed and remanded 

with instructions to dismiss the Tribe's suit.47 

First, after a lengthy review of the Restoration Act's legislative history and the Cabazon 

decision,48 the Fifth Circuit held that "Congress -- and the Tribe -- intended for Texas' gaminj 

laws and regulations to operate as surrogate federal law on the Tribe's reservation in Texas.' 9 

Next, after finding that the Restoration Act "establishes a procedure for enforcement of§ 107(a) 

which is fundamentally at odds with the concepts of IGRA," the Fifth Circuit held that the IGRA 

did not effect a partial repeal of the Restoration Act. 50 The court observed that the IGRA did not 

expressly repeal conflicting sections of the Restoration Act, and that "[t]he Supreme Court has 

indicated that 'repeals by implication are not favored. "'51 The court then observed that implied 

repeals are especially disfavored when it is suggested that a general statute has impliedly 

repealed a specific statute, 52 and opined that, with regard to gaming, the Restoration Act is a 

specific statute applying to two specific tribes in a particular state, while the IGRA is a general 

statute.53 The court further asserted that two provisions of the IGRA that reference existing 

federal law demonstrate that that the IGRA was not intended to trump statutes such as the 

Restoration Act. 54 Finally, the court noted that Congress in 1993 expressly exempted the 

Catawba Tribe of Indians ("Catawba") in South Carolina from the IGRA, thereby "evidencing in 

our view a clear intension on Congress' part that IGRA is not to be the one and only statute 

addressing the subject of gaming on Indian lands.''55 Having concluded that the IGRA does not 

effect an implied repeal of contrary provisions of the Restoration Act, the Fifth Circuit wrote: 

"To borrow IGRA terminology, the Tribe has already made its 'compact' with the state of Texas, 

and the Restoration Act embodies that compact."56 The court suggested the only way for the 

Tribe to game under IGRA would be to petition Congress to amend or repeal the Restoration 

Act.s1 

46 Ysleta de/ Sur, 36 F.3d at 1327. 

47 Id at 1327, 1335-36. 

48 Id at 1327-31. 

49 Id at 1334 (emphasis added). 

so Id. at 1334-35. 

si Id at 1335 (quoting Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987)). 

52 Id (citing Crawford Fitting, 482 U.S. at 445). 

SJ Id 

54 Id. (citing 25 U.S.C. § 2701(5) ("the Congress finds that ... Indian tribes have the exclusive right to regulate 

gaming activity on Indian lands if the gaming activity is not specifically prohibited by Federal law"); id § 

2710(b)(l)(A) (tribes may engage in Class II gaming if, inter alia, "such gaming is not otherwise specifically 

prohibited on Indian lands by Federal law"). 

SS Id. 

s

6 Id. Having concluded that the IGRA did not apply, and that the Restoration Act contained no language abrogating 

the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit, the Fifth Circuit held that the Eleventh Amendment barred the 

Tribe's suit and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss. Id. at 1335-36. 

57 Id at J 335. 

7 

Attachment A 
2. Litigation under the Restoration Act 

Meanwhile, the Tribe opened the Sfeaking Rock Casino and Entertainment Center ("Speaking 

Rock") on its reservation in 1993.5 Speaking Rock began as a bingo hall, but evolved into "a 

fuJI-scale casino offering a wide variety of gambling activities played with cards, dice, and 

balls."59 In 1999, after Speaking Rock had been open and orerating for approximately six years, 

the State sued under Section 107(c) of the Restoration Act.6 On September 21, 2001, the district 

court issued an injunction that "had the practical and legal effect of prohibiting illegal as well as 

legal gaming activities by the [Tribe]."6 After an unsuccessful appeal, the Tribe in February 

2002 ceased operating those gaming activities prohibited by the injunction.62 In May 2002, at 

the request of the Tribe, the district court modified its injunction to allow the Tribe to offer 

certain specified sweepstakes promotions, but denied the Tribe's request to offer its own 

sweepstakes.63 The following year, the Tribe requested permission to offer a sweepstakes 

promotion selling prepaid phone cards that provided patrons access to "sweepstakes validation 

tenninal[s]"; that request, too, was denied by the district court.64 

In 2008, upon discovering that the Tribe was operating devices at Speaking Rock that 

"rt:~t:mblt:u trauitiunal eight-liner gambling devices and were operated by a card purchased with 

cash," the State accused the Tribe of violating the injunction and made a motion that the Tribe be 

held contempt of court. 65 The Tribe sought further clarification of the injunction and a 

declaration that its "Texas Reel Skill" sweepstakes game did not violate the injunction.66 In 

August 2009, the district court granted the State's motion, issued a contempt order, and refused 

to declare that the Tribe's "Texas Reel Skill" game was legal.67 A week later, the Tribe sought 

permission to operate yet another sweepstakes game, which the district court denied in October 

2010.68 The Tribe, however, did not cease operation of its sweepstakes games, and by 2012 it 

had opened a second sweepstakes operation at the Socorro Entertainment Center ("Socorro").69 

The State made another motion that the Tribe be held in contempt of court in September 2013, 

and amended that motion multiple times before withdrawing it in favor of a renewed motion for 

contempt made on March 17, 2014. 70 After holding a two-day evidentiary hearing and accepting 

more than a 1.5 million pages of documents into evidence,71 the district court on March 6, 2015, 

58 State v. Ysleta def Sur Pueblo, No. EP-99-CV-320-KC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28026, at •6 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 

2015) (hereinafter, "State v. Ysleta def Sur Pueblo"). 

59 Id. 

60 Id. at 3. 

61 Id. at •6-7 (internal quotation and citation omitted; alteration in original). 

62 Id. at •s. 63 Id. at *9-10. 

64 Id. at * 11. 

65 Id. at *11-12. 

66 Id. at *12-13. 

67 Id. at *12-14. 

68 Id. at *14-15. 

69 Id. at *15. 

70 Id at •15-16. 

71 Id at *16-17. 

8 

Attachment A 
held the Tribe in contempt and ordered that it cease all sweepstakes operations within sixty days 

or face civil penalties of $100,000 per day, unless the Tribe submitted "a firm and detailed 

proposal setting out a sweepstakes promotion that operates in accordance with federal and Texas 

Jaw," the submission of which would result in a stay of the contempt sanctions while the court 

considered the ribe's proposal and the State's response. 72 On May 5, 2015, the ribe submitted 

its proposal,73 which the State has opposed.74 

F. The Tribe's Amended Gaming Ordinance and the NIGC Request 

On August 17, 2015, the Tribe resubmitted75 to the NIGC an amendment to its gaming 

ordinance. 76 The NIGC has asked the Solicitor's Office for clarification as to the Tribe's 

"eligibility to engage in Class II gaming under the [IGRA] in light of the [Restoration Act] and 

the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal's interpretation of it in Ysleta de/ Sur Pueblo v. State of 

Texas."77 

II. ANALYSIS 

Congress has not spoken directly to the issue of whether the Restoration Act or the IGRA 

governs gaming on the Tribe's reservation and tribal lands. The Restoration Act neither 

expressly anticipates and provides for the possibility that subsequent legislation might render 

certain sections of it obsolete, nor does it expressly insulate its provisions from subsequently 

enacted contrary legislation. Likewise, the IGRA does not make any direct or indirect references 

to the Restoration Act, the Tribe, or the State. As explained in greater detail throughout our 

analysis, we recognize that the Fifth Circuit in Ysleta de/ Sur held that the Restoration Act, and 

not the IGRA, governs gaming on the Tribe's lands. 78 However, the Department was not a party 

to the Ysleta litigation and is not bound by the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of the Restoration 

Act.19 

72 Id at *118-20. 

73 State v. Ysleta de/ Sur Pueblo, ECF Docket No. 5 I 3 (May 5, 2015). 

74 State v. Ysleta de/ Sur Pueblo, ECF Docket No. 514 (June 5, 2015). 

15 The Pueblo previously submitted this amendment to the NIGC Chairman on March 21, 2014; June 6, 2014; 

August 29, 2014; November 24, 2014; February 24, 2015; and May 19, 2015. 2015 NIGC Letter, supra note I, at I. 

76 Letter from Randolph H. Barnhouse, Counsel for Ysleta del Sur, to Jonodev Osceola Chaudhuri, Chainnan, NIGC 

(Aug. 17, 2015). 

n 2015 NIGC Letter, supra note I, at I (footnotes omitted). 

78 See generally Ysleta de/ Sur, 36 F.3d 1325 (5th Cir. 1994). 

79 An agency charged with implementing a statute may "choose a different construction" of the statute than that 

embraced by a circuit court, "since the agency remains the authoritative interpreter (within the limits of reason) of 

such statutes. Nat'/ Cable & Telecomms. Ass 'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 983 (2005). With regard 

to the Restoration Act, the Department is the executive agency charged with administering the statute. Restoration 

Act, supra note 2, § 2 ("The Secretary of the Interior or his designated representative may promulgate such 

regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act."); cj Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Maine, 75 

F.3d 784, 794 (1996) (holding that administration ofa tribe's settlement act is a "role that belongs to the Secretary 

of the Interior''). See also Northern Arapahoe Tribe v. Hodel, 808 F.2d 741, 749 (10th Cir. 1987) ("Congress has 

delegated to the Secretary [of the Interior] broad authority to manage Indian affairs" (citing 25 U.S.C. § 2)). 

Therefore, the Department may choose a different interpretation of the Restoration Act than the interpretation 

chosen by the Fifth Circuit. Here, the Department does so. 

9 

Attachment A 
In interpreting a statute that we are charged with administering, we seek to effect the intent of the 

Congress that enacted the statute.80 Agency interpretation of a statute follows the same two-step 

analysis that courts follow when reviewing an agency's statutory interpretation. At the first step, 

the agency must answer "whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise question at issue" 

and, if the statute is clear, then the agency must give effect to ''the unambiguously expressed 

intent of Congress."81 If, however, the statute is .. silent or ambiguous,' as are both the 

Restoration Act and the IGRA, then the agency must base its interpretation on a "reasonable 

construction" of the statute. 82 

When confronted with a statute that was enacted for the benefit of Indians, as were both the 

Restoration Act and the IGRA, ifthat statute contains ambiguities we are guided by an additional 

principle:: "statutes passed for the benefit of ... Indian tribes ... are to be liberally construed, 

doubtful expressions being resolved in favor of the Indians."83 

Employing both the standard rules of statutory construction and the Indian canon, and applying 

the Department's expertise in the field oflndian affairs,84 the Department interprets the IGRA as 

impliedly repealing the gaming provisions of the Restoration Act. Therefore, we conclude that 

the IORA, and not the Restoration Act, govems gaming on the Tribe's reservation and tribal 

lands. 

Our interpretation contains four distinct subparts. First, having analyzed both the text and the 

legislative history of the IGRA, employing both the standard rules of statutory construction and 

the Indian canon, we concur in your conclusion85 that Congress intended for the IGRA to apply 

to the Tribe. Second, we conclude that the Tribe possesses jurisdiction over its reservation and 

tribal lands sufficient to trigger the operation of the IGRA and, therefore, that the IGRA governs 

gaming on the Tribe's reservation and tribal lands. Third, we conclude that Section 107 of the 

Restoration Act is repugnant to the IGRA and, therefore, that the statutes cannot be harmonized. 

Finally, we conclude that in this conflict the IGRA prevails and effects an implied repeal of 

Section I 07 of the Restoration Act. 

A. Both the text of the IGRA and its legislative history demonstrated that Congress 

intended for the IGRA to apply to the Tribe. 

The IGRA "is an expression of Congress's will in respect to the incidence of gambling activities 

on Indian lands."86 Among the IGRA's "stated goals (was] to create a comprehensive regulatory 

framework 'for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal 

80 Wyoming v. United Stales, 279 F.3d 1214, 1230 (10th Cir. 2002) ("The question whether federal law authorize[s] 

certain federal agency action is one of congressional intent."). 

81 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984). 

82 Id at 840. 

83 Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373, 392 (1976). 

84 Cherokee Nation v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. at 497 n.7 (2006) (observing that "the Secretary [of the Interior] 

certainly has vast expertise in interpreting Indian statutes"). 

85 See 2015 NIGC Letter, supra note I, at 2. Although we have not seen your analysis, we reach the same 

conclusion and, therefore, concur. 

86 Narragansell, l 9 F.3d at 689. 

10 

Attachment A 
economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments. "'87 The text ofIGRA, 

itself, contains no express exemption for the Tribe, or for any other tribe; rather, the IGRA is 

written broadly to encompass all federally recognized Indian tribes.88 Thus, "[b]y its own terms, 

the [IGRA], if taken in isolation, applies to any federally recognized Indian tribe that possesses 

powers of self-govemance."89 Therefore, given IGRA's broad purposes, and the fact that 

nothing in the plain language of IGRA expressly excludes the Tribe, we conclude that, on its 

face, IGRA applies to the Tribe. 

The Fifth Circuit, however, pointed to two sections of the IGRA that make reference to "other 

federal law," and that it believed demonstrated Congress's intent that the IGRA not supersede 

the gaming provisions of the Restoration Act and similar statutes. Noting that the IGRA was 

enacted scarcely a year after the Restoration Act, the court wrote that Congress "explicitly stated 

in two separate provisions of the IGRA that IGRA should be considered in light of other federal 

law,"

90 the Fifth Circuit interpreted these two sections as providing that the IGRA does not apply 

where Congress had previously spoken to gaming, as it had in the Restoration Act.91 

We interpret these provisions differently than the Fifth Circuit. The Senate Report on the IGRA 

explains that this Ianr,age instead "refers to gaming that utilizes mechanical devices as defined 

in 15 U.S.C. 1175."9 In other words, the language that the Fifth Circuit relied upon in finding 

that the text of the IGRA expressly exempted tribes for whom prior Federal law addressed 

gaming was, instead, intended to make clear that the IGRA did not legalize certain games that 

were already illegal as a matter of Federal law. 

The legislative history of the IGRA contains no specific evidence that Congress sought to 

exclude the Tribe from the IGRA's ambit. The 1988 Senate IGRA Report contains no specific 

87 Wells Fargo Bank, 658 F.3d at 687 (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1)). 

88 25 U.S.C. § 2703(5) ("The tenn 'Indian tribe' means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or 

community of Indians which - (A) is recognized as eligible by the Secretary for the special programs and services 

provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians, and (B) is recognized as possessing 

powers of self-government.") 

89 Passamaquoddy, 15 F.3d at 788 (citing 25 U.S.C. § 2703(5)). 

90 Yslela de/ Sur, 36 F.3d at 1335 (citing 25 U.S.C. § 2701(5) ("The Congress finds that-(5) Indian tribes have the 

exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands if the gaming is nol specifically prohibited by Federal 

law and is conducted within a State which does not, as a matter of criminal law and public policy, prohibit such 

gaming activity" (emphasis added)); and 25 U.S.C. § 2701(b)(l)(A) ("An Indian tribe may engage in, or license and 

regulate, class II gaming on Indian lands within such tribe's jurisdiction, if - (A) such Indian gaming is located 

within a State that pennits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization or entity (and such gaming is 

not otherwise specificafly prohibited on Indian lands by Federal law)" (parenthetical in original, emphasis added))). 

91 Id. 

92 1988 Senate IGRA Report, supra note 36, at 12. The 1988 Senate IGRA Report also explains that the IGRA was 

not intended to "supersede any specific restriction or specific grant of Federal authority or jurisdiction to a State 

which may be encompassed in another Federal statute, including the Rhode Island Claims Settlement Act and the 

[Maine] Indian Claim Settlement Act (citations omitted). Id. This language does not change our analysis. The 

Restoration Act expressly provides that it is not a grant of Federal authority or jurisdiction with regard to gaming, 

but is instead merely an extension of the State's substantive gaming law with a specified federal court remedy. 

Restoration Act, supra note 2, at§ 107(a) (applying State's substantive gaming law), § 107(b) (no grant of 

jurisdiction to the State), § I 07(c) (remedy in federal court). 

11 

Attachment A 
references to the Tribe, the State of Texas, or the Restoration Act.93 That Report does explain 

that Congress did not intend for the IGRA to "supersede any specific restriction or grant of 

Federal authority or jurisdiction to a State which may be encompassed in another Federal 

statute," citing as a specific example the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act.94 However, the 

Restoration Act contains no "specific restriction ... of Federal authority," and although Section 

105(±) provides for a general grant of jurisdiction to the State, Section 107(c) srecifically states 

that that grant of jurisdiction does not give the State jurisdiction over gaming. 9 

The Fifth Circuit concluded that Congress's 1993 decision to exclude the Catawba in South 

Carolina from the IGRA's ambit was evidence of"a clear intention on Congress' part that IGRA 

is not to be the one and only statute addressing the subject of gaming on Indian lands."96 

However, the actions of the 103d Congress shed no light whatsoever on the intentions of the 

100111 Congress at the time that it enacted the IGRA; rather, the fact that specific legislation was 

required to place the Catawba outside the IGRA's ambit in South Carolina strongly suggests that, 

absent an explicit act such as that taken with the Catawba, a tribe must be presumed to fall within 

the IGRA's ambit. Consequently, because no act of Congress expressly places the Tribe outside 

of the IGRA's scope, we interpret the IGRA as including the Tribe within its ambit. 

Therefore, we conclude that the gaming on the Tribe's reservation and Indian lands falls within 

the ambit of the IGRA. 

B. The Tribe possesses and exercises jurisdiction over its reservation and tribal 

lands sufficient to trigger the operation of the IGRA. 

The IGRA is not applicable to all land owned by a tribe. First, the IGRA provides for gaming 

only on "Indian lands," a category which includes: (1) land located within the exterior 

boundaries of a tribe's reservation; and (2) trust land and restricted fee land over which a tribe 

exercises governmental authority. 97 Second, the IGRA requires that a tribe possess legal 

93 See generally 1988 Senate IGRA Report, supra note 36. 

94 Id. at 12 (citations omitted). The Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act provides in part that any subsequently 

enacted Federal laws "for the benefit of Indians, Indian nations, or tribes or bands of Indians, which would affect or 

preempt the application of the laws of the State of Maine, including application of the laws ofthe State to lands 

owned by or held in trust for Indians, or Indian nations, tribes, or bands of Indians, as provided in this subchapter 

and the Maine Implementing Act, shall not apply within the State of Maine, unless such provision of such 

subsequently enacted Federal law is specifically made applicable within the State of Maine." 25 U.S.C. § 1735. 

95 Compare Restoration Act, supra note 2, with Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1735. The 

Restoration Act-enacted by the very same Congress that enacted the IGRA scarcely a year later- contains no 

language whatsoever that would preserve its gaming provisions in the face of subsequently enacted Federal law, 

such as the IGRA. 

96 Ysleta de/ Sur, 36 F.3d at 1135. 

97 The IGRA defines "Indian lands" as "all lands within the limits of any Indian reservation" and "any lands title to 

which is either held in trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or individual or held by any 

Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction by the United States against alienation and over which an Indian tribe 

exercises governmental power." 25 U.S.C. § 2703(4). The NIGC's regulations further define "Indian lands" and 

specify that in order for land outside ofa tribe's reservation to qualify as Indian lands the tribe must exercise 

governmental authority overthat land. 25 C.F.R. § 502.12 (defining "Indian lands" as "land within the limits of an 

Indian reservation," "land over which an Indian tribe exercises governmental power ... [and is] [h]eld in trust by the 

United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or individual," or "land over which an Indian tribe exercises 

12 

Attachment A 
jurisdiction over the land. 98 There is a presumption that tribes possess legal jurisdiction over 

land located within the exterior boundaries of their own reservations.99 Where there is a question 

as to the tribe's jurisdiction, courts have found that a tribe must meet two requirements 100: First, 

the provisions of the IGRA related to Class I and class II gaming require that a tribe must have 

jurisdiction over the land; 101 second, the provision defining the elements of"Indian lands" 

requires that a tribe must exercise governmental power over the land. 102 

Courts have found that possession of legal jurisdiction over land is a threshold requirement to the 

exercise of governmental power required for trust and restricted fee land. 103 Whether a tribe 

possess legal jurisdiction over a particular parcel of land often hinges on construing settlement or 

restoration acts that limit the tribe's jurisdiction104 or on a determination of which tribe possesses 

jurisdiction over a particular parcel of land. tos A showing of povernmental power requires a 

concrete manifestation of authority and is a factual inquiry. 1

° For trust or restricted fee land to 

qualify as Indian lands over which a tribe possess jurisdiction, the two requirements of having 

jurisdiction and exercising governmental authority must both be met. Once a tribe has 

established that its land qualifies as Indian lands and that the tribe possesses jurisdiction over that 

governmental power ... [and is] [h]eld by an Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction by the United States 

against alienation"). 

98 25 U.S.C. § 27IO(b)(I) (providing that, subject to enumerated criteria, "[a]n Indian tribe may engage in, or license 

and regulate, class n gaming on Indian lands within such tribe's jurisdiction"); id at § 2710( d)(I )(A)(i) (providing 

that, subject to enumerated criteria, "Class III gaming activities shall be lawful on Indian lands only if such activities 

are-{A) authorized by an ordinance or resolution that-(i) is adopted by the governing body of the Indian tribe 

having jurisdiction over such lands"). 

99 Letter from Michael J. Berrigan, Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs, to Jo-Ann Shyloski, Associate 

General Counsel, NIGC, at 4-5 n.26 and decisions cited therein (Aug. 23, 2013) [hereinafter "2013 Wampanoag 

Opinion Letter"], available al 

http://www.nigc.gov/LinkClick.aspx?link=NIGC+Uploads%2findianlands%2f20130823AquinnahSettlementActlnte 

rpretationsigned.pdf&tabid= l 20&mid=957. 

100 Narragansett, 19 F.3d at 701. 

101 Id (citing25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(I)). 

102 Id. (citing 25 U.S.C. § 2703(4)). 

103 See Kansas v. United States, 249 F.3d 1213, 1229 (10th Cir. 2001) ("(B]efore a sovereign may exercise 

governmental power over land, the sovereign, in its sovereign capacity, must have jurisdiction over that land."); 

Narragansett, 19 F.3d at 701-03 (1st Cir. 1994), superseded by statute, 25 U.S.C. § 1708(b), as stated in 

Narragansetl Indian Tribe v. Nat 'I Indian Gaming Comm 'n, 158 F.3d 1335 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Miami Tribe of 

Oklahoma v. United States, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 1217 (D. Kan. 1998) (stating that a tribe must have jurisdiction in 

order to exercise governmental power); Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States, 927 F. Supp. 1419, 1423 (D. 

Kan. 1996) ("(T)he NIGC implicitly decided that in order to exercise governmental power for purposes of25 U.S.C. 

§ 2703(4), a tribe must first have jurisdiction over the land."). 

104 See, e.g., Narragansett, 19 F.3d at 701-02 (finding that Narragansett Indian Tribe possessed the requisite 

jurisdiction to trigger the IGRA in light of the tribe's settlement act); 2013 Wampanoag Opinion Letter, supra note 

99, at 5 n.31 and authorities cited therein. 

ios Letter from Lawrence S. Roberts, General Counsel, NlGC, et al., to Tracie Stevens, Chairwoman, NIGC, at 10-

13 (May 24, 2012) (detennining that Muscogee (Creek) Nation had jurisdiction over land in question and that the 

Kialegee Tribal Town had not demonstrated that it had legal jurisdiction), available al 

http://www.nigc.gov/LinkClick.aspx?link=NIGC+Uploads%2freadingroom%2fgameopinions%2fkialegeetribaltown 

opinion52412.pdf&tabid=l20&mid=957; 2013 Wampanoag Opinion Letter, supra note 99, at 5-6 n.32 and 

authorities cited therein. 

106 Narragansett, 19 F.3d at 703. 

13 

Attachment A 
land-making it eligible for Indian gaming-the tribe has the exclusive right to regulate gaming 

on that land, and a state can extent its jurisdiction only through a tribal-state compact. 107 

Approximately twenty years ago, the First Circuit in Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian 

Tribe 108 determined whether a tribe's settlement act prohibited gaming. It created a two-step 

analysis, first asking whether the tribe possesses the requisite jurisdiction for the IGRA to apply 

to the tribe's lands; and next asking whether the tribe's settlement act and the IGRA can be read 

together, or whether the IGRA impliedly repealed the settlement act's gaming provisions. 109 

This office has since used the Narragansett framework to evaluate whether the Wampanoag 

Tribal Council of Gay Head, Inc., Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1987 prohibited the 

Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) from gaming. 110 Because the settlement act at issue 

in Narragansett and the Restoration Act at issue here raise similar questions with respect to 

gaming and the application of the IGRA, we employ that framework here. 111 

In applying the Narragansett court's framework to the present question, we begin by asking 

whether the Y sleta del Sur Tribe possesses jurisdiction over its reservation and tribal lands 

sufficient to trigger the application of the IGRA. 112 To determine whether the Tribe possesses 

the requisite jurisdiction for the IGRA to apply, we must first determine what the IGRA's 

reference to "jurisdiction' means. 113 A basic tenet of Indian law dictates that tribes retain 

attributes of sovereignty, and therefore jurisdiction, over their lands and members. 114 In 

Narragansett, the court explained that the jurisdiction required for the IGRA to apply is derived 

from a tribe's retained rights flowing from their inherent sovereignty. 115 Against that backdrop, 

we construe the IGRA's language. 

As noted above, statutory interpretation begins with the plain meaning of the language itself. 

With respect to class II gaming, the IGRA states that "[a]n Indian tribe may enlfage in, or license 

and regulate, class II gaming on Indian lands within such tribe's jurisdiction."1 6 With regard to 

class III gaming, the IGRA explains that "[a]ny Indian tribe having jurisdiction over the Indian 

107 25 U.S.C. § 2701(5) ("The Congress finds that ... Indian tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming 

activity on Indian lands if the gaming activity is not specifically prohibited by Federal law and is conducted within a 

State which does not, as a matter of criminal law and public policy, prohibit such gaming activity."). 

108 19 F.3d 685 (lst Cir. 1994). 

109 Id. 

110 2013 Wampanoag Opinion Letter, supra note 99, at 4-5 n.26 and decisions cited therein. 

111 See generally id. In Narragansell, the First Circuit held that the Narragansett Indian Tribe ("Narragansett Tribe") 

possessed and exercised jurisdiction under its settlement act that was sufficient to trigger the application of the 

IGRA. 19 F.3d at 700-03. Upon concluding that the IGRA was triggered, the court examined the interplay between 

the settlement act and the IGRA and concluded that the IGRA effected an implied partial repeal of portions of the 

settlement act. Id at 703-05. 

112 2013 Wampanoag Opinion Letter, supra note 99, at 7-15. 113 Id. at 7. 

114 The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently recognized that Indian tribes retain "attributes of sovereignty over both 

their members and their territory." Cabazon, 480 U.S. at 207 (quoting United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 557 

(1975)). 

115 19 F.3d at 70 I ("We believe that jurisdiction is an integral aspect of retained sovereignty."). 

116 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(I) (emphasis added). 

14 

Attachment A 
lands upon which a class III gaming activity is being conducted" must enter into a compact with 

the state. 117 It further requires that a gaming ordinance authorizing class III gaming be "adopted 

by the governing body of the Indian tribe having jurisdiction over such lands." 118 In each of the 

IGRA 's three references to its jurisdictional requirement, the statute clearly states that a tribe 

must possess jurisdiction over its lands. 119 

We, like the First Circuit, also view as important the amount of jurisdiction a tribe must possess 

in order to trigger application of the IGRA. Tribes possess aspects of sovereignty not ceded by 

treaty or withdrawn by statute or by implication as a necessary result of their dependent status. 120 

In other words, tribes are presumed to have jurisdiction over their land unless it has been ceded 

or withdrawn. When Congress enacts a status depriving a tribe of jurisdiction, it must do so 

explicitly. 12 1 Furthermore, "acts diminishing the sovereign rights of Indian [t]ribes should be 

strictly construed." 122 This statutory rule is bolstered by the Indian canon of construction. 

We require Congress's explicit divestiture of tribal jurisdiction to avoid the IGRA's application 

to Indian lands, as did the Narragansett court. 123 In other words, unless a tribe has been 

completely divested of jurisdiction, the IGRA applies. A mere grant of state jurisdiction is not 

enough to find the State has exclusive jurisdiction over the land. 124 

Here, the Restoration Act does not confer upon the State jurisdiction over gaming on the Tribe's 

reservation and tribal lands, but instead merely provides that "gaming activities which are 

prohibited by the laws of the State of Texas are hereby prohibited on the reservation and on lands 

of the tribe." 125 This merely codified the distinction, set forth in Cabazon and affirmed in the 

IGRA, between regulated gaming activities, which a tribe may engage in pursuant to the IGRA, 

and prohibited gaming activities, which a tribe may engage in only under the terms of a compact 

117 Id § 27lO(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added). 

118 Id.§ 2710(d)(l)(A)(i) (emphasis added). 

119 2013 Wampanoag Opinion Letter, supra note 99, at 8 n.57 and authorities cited therein. 

120 Narragansell, l 9 F.3d at 701 (citing United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323 (1978)). 

121 Id. at 702 ("Since the settlement Act does not unequivocally articulate an intent to deprive the Tribe of 

jurisdiction, we hold that its grant of jurisdiction to the state is non-exclusive" (emphasis added)); Letter from 

Michael J. Anderson, Acting Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs, to Patricia A. Marks, Attorney, Wampanoag Tribe 

of Gay Head, at 3 (Sept. 5, l 997) [hereinafter" 1997 AS-IA Letter"] (pointing to "long-standing Executive and 

Congressional policies favoring the strengthening of tribal self-government, and disfavoring the implicit erosion of 

tribal sovereignty" and explaining that "[i]n this context, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congressional intent 

to delegate exclusive jurisdiction to a state must be clearly and specifically expressed" (citing Bryan, 426 U.S. at 

392)). 

122 Norragansell, 19 F.3d at 702. 

123 Id at 702. The Assistant Secretary also has emphasized this point. l 997 AS-IA Letter, supra note 121, at 4 

("Had Congress desired to defeat concurrent tribal jurisdiction on lands located outside of the Town of Gay Head, it 

would have either provided for •exclusive' state and local jurisdiction, or it would have included limitations on tribal 

jurisdiction."). 

124 2013 Wampanoag Opinion Letter, supra note 99, at 9; Narragansett, 19 F.3d at 702 (because the Settlement 

Act's "grant of jurisdiction to the state is non-exclusive," the Narragansett Tribe "retain[s] that portion of 

jurisdiction they possess by virtue of their sovereign existence as a people - a portion sufficient to satisfy the 

Gaming Act's 'having jurisdiction' prong."). 

125 Restoration Act, supra note 2, § l 07(a). 

15 

Attachment A 
with a state. At most, Section I 07(a) functions as a choice-of-law provision, employing the 

State's substantive gaming law to set the bounds of pennissible gaming on the Tribe's 

reservation and tribal lands. Under either reading of the Restoration Act, Section I 07(a) 

diminishes the Tribe's sovereign right to enact its own gaming laws; however, it does not 

diminish the Tribe's jurisdiction, on its reservation and tribal lands, to regulate gaming activities 

undertaken in accordance with the State's substantive gaming laws. 

In addition, the application of the State's gaming laws on the Tribe's reservation and tribal lands 

must be strictly construed, under basic tenets of Indian law and the Narragansett framework. No 

provision of the Restoration Act expressly, or even impliedly, divests the Tribe of regulatory 

jurisdiction over its reservation and tribal lands. In fact, Section 107(b) of the Act provides: 

"Nothing in this section shall be construed as a grant of civil or criminal regulatory jurisdiction 

to the State of Texas." Moreover, Section 107(c) of the Restoration Act provides that Federal 

courts "have exclusive jurisdiction over". alleged violations of Section 107(a), thereby impliedly 

divesting the Tribe only of its adjudicatory jurisdiction over gaming disputes that arise under the 

Act. Therefore, the Tribe retains nearly complete civil and criminal regulatory jurisdiction over 

its reservation and tribal lands, except for the narrow exception for Federal court jurisdiction 

provided in Section 107(c), which means that the State does not and cannot have exclusive 

jurisdiction over those Iands. 126 

In addition, the Restoration Act's only grant of jurisdiction to the State, contained in Section 

1 OS(f), does not suggest that such State jurisdiction is exclusive. Instead, it merely provides that 

the State has civil and criminal jurisdiction on the Tribe's reservation and Indian lands consistent 

with Public Law 280, as amended by the Indian Civil Rights Act, 127 which does not extinguish 

the Tribe's inherent jurisdiction, but instead merely authorizes the State to exercise jurisdiction 

concurrent with that of the Tribe. 128 Section I 05(f) does not use the words "exclusive" or 

126 Both the Assistant Secretary and this Office have observed that the gaming provisions of the Restoration Act 

differed markedly from those contained in the Massachusetts Indian Land Claims Settlement act. 2013 Wampanoag 

Opinion Letter, supra note 99, at 12-13 n.95; 1997 AS-IA Letter, supra note 121, at 5. Neither letter contained an 

in-depth analysis of the Restoration Act, and neither concluded that the Restoration Act completely divested the 

Tribe of jurisdiction over gaming on its reservation and tribal lands; rather, both letters simply observed that the 

differences in the two statutes provided a reason not to follow the Fifth Circuit's Ysleta de/ Sur opinion in their 

respective analyses of the Massachusetts Indian Land Claims Settlement Act. Id. Even if those Letters had 

concluded that the Restoration Act completely divested the Tribe of jurisdiction over its reservation and tribal lands, 

they would not preclude us from reconsidering that opinion in this Memorandum. See Chevron, 461 U.S. at 863-64 

("An initial agency interpretation is not instantly carved in stone. On the contrary, the agency ... must consider 

varying interpretations and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis."). 

We are aware of the Assistant Secretary's statement that the Restoration Act "specifically prohibits all gaming 

activities which are prohibited by the laws of the State of Texas on the reservation and lands of the Ysleta del Sur 

Pueblo." 1997 AS-IA Letter, supra note 121, at 5; 2013 Wampanoag Opinion Letter, supra note 99, at 12-13 n.95 

(quoting AS-IA Letter). This statement was not made in a detailed analysis of the Restoration Act, itself, but rather, 

in the Assistant Secretary's analysis of the Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head, Inc., Indian Claims Settlement 

Act of 1987, and therefore is not dispositive here. 

127 Restoration Act, supra note 2, § I 05(t). Nothing in Section l 05(t) suggests that the grant of jurisdiction to the 

State is exclusive. 

128 1-6 Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law§ 6.04[3][c] (2012) ("The nearly unanimous view among tribal 

courts, state courts, lower federal courts, state attorneys general, the Solicitor's Office for the Department of the 

Interior, and legal scholars is that Public Law 280 left the inherent civil and criminal jurisdiction oflndian nations 

untouched" (internal citations omitted)). 

16 

Attachment A 
"complete" in describing the jurisdiction conferred upon the State in Section 1 OS(f). 129 It does, 

however, use the word "exclusive" in Section 107(c) to describe the grant of jurisdiction to the 

federal courts for resolution of gaming disputes arising from the provisions of Section 107(a). 130 

"Where 'Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another 

section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely 

in the disparate inclusion or exclusion. "'131 

In sum, the Restoration Act does not grant the State exclusive jurisdiction over the Pueblo's land 

and does not divest the Pueblo of its inherent jurisdiction. To the contrary, the Act specifically 

declares that it is not a grant of civil and criminal regulatory jurisdiction to the State. 132 

C. Section 107 of the Restoration Act and the IGRA are repugnant to each other. 

Because the Tribe possesses sufficient jurisdiction to trigger application of the IGRA, we must 

determine whether the I GRA effected an implied repeal of any portion of the Restoration Act. 

When two federal statutes touch on the same subject matter, courts should attempt to give effect 

to both if they can be harmonized. 

133 Therefore, "so long as the two statutes, fairly construed, 

are capable of coexistence, courts should regard each as effective." 134 However, if portions of 

the statutes are repugnant to each other, one must prevail over the other. 135 Even where the two 

statutes are not outright repugnant, "a repeal may be implied in cases where the later statutes 

covers the entire subject 'and embraces new provisions, plainly showing that it was intended as a 

substitute for the first act."' 136 When a later statute impliedly repeals a former statute, a partial 

repeal is preferred and only the parts of the former statute that are in plain conflict with the later 

should be nullified. 137 

129 See Narragansett, 19 F.3d at 702 ("omission of words such as 'exclusive' or 'complete"' in statute assigning 

jurisdiction was "meaningful"); United Stales v. Cook, 922 F.2d 1026, 1032-33 (2d Cir. 1991) (finding absence of 

terms "exclusive" or ."complete" in Federal statute's grant of jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against 

Indians meant the statute only extended to the state jurisdiction concurrent with that of the Federal government). 

13° Compare id§ 105(£) (no use of"exclusive" or "complete"), with§ 107(c) ("Notwithstanding section 105(£), the 

courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any offense in violation of subsection (a) .... "). 

Section l07(c), would have been particularly important in the pre-IGRA environment in which the Restoration Act 

was negotiated and ultimately enacted. Because we conclude that the lGRA effects a partial implied repeal of the 

Restoration Act's gaming provisions, Section 107(c) is less relevant today. 

131 Narragansett, 19 F.3d at 702 (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987)). 

132 The second part of the lndian lands determination, whether the tribe exercises governmental power, is a more 

fact-based determination than the jurisdictional question, and does not require construction of the Restoration Act; 

therefore, we leave this determination to the NIGC. 2013 Wampanoag Opinion Letter, supra note 99, at 14-15. 

Nonetheless, we note that, unlike the settlement act at issue in Narragansett, which expressly limited the 

Narragansett's exercise of jurisdiction over its settlement lands, see 25 U.S.C. § 1771 e, the Restoration Act contains 

no language whatsoever limiting the Tribe's exercise of governmental power on its reservation or tribal lands. 133 Narragansett, 19 F.3d at 703. 134 Id at 703 (citing Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U.S. 535, 547-48 (1988); Pipefitters Local 562 v. United States, 407 

U.S. 385, 432 n.43 (1972); United States v. Tynen, 78 U.S. (I I Wall.) 88, 82 (1871)). 

135 Id (citing Tynen, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) at 92). 

136 Id at 703-04 (citing, inter alia, Posadas v. Nat'/ City Bank, 296 U.S. 497, 503-04 (1936); Tynen, 78 U.S. (11 

Wall.) at 92). 

137 Id at 704 n.19. 

17 

Attachment A 
We and the Fifth Circuit agree that the gaming provisions of the Restoration Act cannot be read 

in harmony with the IGRA. 138 

The Fifth Circuit concluded that, by enacting the Restoration Act, "Congress ... intended for 

Texas' gaming laws and regulations to operate as surrogate federal law on the Tribe's reservation 

in Texas." 139 Approximately one year later, however, in enacting the IGRA, Congress 

"expressly preempt[ ed] the field in the governance of gaming activities on Indian lands" 140 by 

creating a nationwide regulatory framework that "struck a 'finely-tuned balance between the 

interests of the states and the tribes' to remedy the Cabazon Band prohibition on state regulation 

oflndian gaming." 141 If, as the Fifth Circuit concluded, Section 107(a) was enacted to serve as 

surrogate federal law on the Tribe's reservation, and the IGRA was enacted to "expressly 

preempt the field" and to "str[ike] a 'finely-tuned balance between the interests of the states and 

the tribes,"' then Section 107(a) cannot be harmonized with the IGRA. 

Although the Department, too, concludes that the Restoration Act and the IGRA cannot be 

reconciled, we respectfully follow a different path than did the Fifth Circuit. We interpret 

Section 107(a) as codifying the distinction, set forth in Cabazon and enacted in the IGRA, 

between civil/regulatory laws and criminal/prohibitory laws. In Section 107(a), Congress 

ensured that gaming prohibited by the State of Texas could not take place on the Tribe's 

reservation and tribal lands. 142 Under this interpretation, Section 107(a), in and of itself, is not 

repugnant to the IGRA. 

However, the Restoration Act and the IGRA provide for different remedies for gaming 

conducted in violation of their provisions. The Restoration Act provides that violations of 

Section 107(a) "shall be subJect to the same civil and criminal penalties that are provided by the 

laws of the State of Texas." 43 Furthermore, the Restoration Act provides the State with an 

independent avenue for enforcement of a violation of Section I 07( a), to wit, an equitable action 

in Federal district court to enjoin gaming on the Tribe's reservation or tribal lands that violates 

Section 107(a). 144 The IGRA and its im}?lementing regulations, on the other hand, provide for an 

entirely different enforcement scheme. 1 

138 See Part II.A, supra. 

139 Ysleta de/ Sur, 36 F.3d at 1334. 

140 1988 Senate IGRA Report, supra note 36, at 6. 

141 Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491, 506-507 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Spokane Tribe of Indians, 

139 F.3d 1297, 1301 (9th Cir. 1988)); see also Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. South Dakota, 830 F. Supp. 523, 526 

(D.S.D. 1993) (citing 1988 Senate IGRA Report, supra note 36), ajf d 3 F.3d 273 (8th Cir. 1993). 

142 We are aware that the Fifth Circuit expressly rejected this interpretation. Ys/eta de/ Sur, 36 F.3d at 1333'-34. As 

set forth supra, the Department, as the agency with responsibility for implementing the Restoration Act, may adopt 

an alternative interpretation. 

143 Restoration Act, supra note 2, § 107(a). 

144 Id. § 107(c). 

145 18 U.S.C. §§ 1166-1168 (1GRA criminal laws and penalties; 25 U.S.C. § 2706(b)(IO) (NIGC has authority to 

promulgate regulations for implementation of the IGRA; 25 U.S.C. § 2713 (civil penalties for violation of the 

IGRA); 25 C.F.R. Part 573 (Compliance and Enforcement); 25 C.F.R. Part 575 (Civil Fines). 

18 

Attachment A 
Because the enforcement regime provided in Section I 07 of the Restoration Act cannot be 

reconciled with the enforcement regime provided in the IGRA, we conclude that the two statutes 

are repugnant to one another. 

D. In the conflict between Section 107 of the Restoration Act and the IGRA, the 

IGRA prevails, thus impliedly repealing Section 107. 

As the Fifth Circuit noted in Ysleta def Sur, "repeals by implication are not favored." 146 

Nonetheless, when two statutes cannot be reconciled, one must prevail over the other. 147 Here, 

our analysis diverges more sharply from that of the Fifth Circuit. 

The general rule, as set forth by the Narragansett court, is that "where two acts are in 

irreconcilable conflict, the later act prevails to the extent of the impasse." 148 In the conflict 

between Section 107 of the Restoration Act and the IGRA, this general rule suggests, absent 

good cause to the contrary, that the IGRA prevails. In addition, in its analysis of the interplay 

between the Restoration Act and the IGRA, not only did the Fifth Circuit neglect to apply or 

even acknowledge the Indian canon, it also failed to employ or even acknowledge "the general 

rule ... that where two acts are in irreconcilable conflict, the later act prevails to the extent of the 

impasse." 149 IGRA was enacted approximately one year after the Restoration Act. 

The Fifth Circuit held that the Restoration Act prevails because it, being applicable to only two 

tribes in a single state, is a specific statute and tbe IGRA, being of nationwide application, is a 

general statute. 150 However, the IO.RA also is a specific statute because it is specifically directed 

to the issue of Indian gaming, while the Restoration Act is a general statute because its primary 

purpose is to restore the Federal trust relationship, with gaming constituting only one part of that 

statute. The district court in Narragansett concluded as much with respect to the Rhode Island 

Settlement Act. 151 Moreover, where "the enacting Congress is demonstrably aware of the earlier 

law at the time of the later law's enactment, there is no basis for indulging the presumption" that 

Congress did not intend its later statute to act upon the earlier one. 152 

In addition, our conclusion that the IGRA prevails preserves the core of both acts. The primary 

purpose of the Restoration Act was to restore the Federal trust relationship and Federal services 

and assistance to the Y sleta del Sur Pueblo and the Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of 

Texas. 153 The Act's gaming provisions were enacted to fill a legal and jurisdictional void that 

existed at that time, before the IGRA was enacted. 154 Consequently, an interpretation of the two 

146 Ysleta de/ Sur, 36 F.3d at 1335 (quoting Crawford Fitting, 482 U.S. at 442). 

147 Narragansett, 19 F.3d at 703. 

148 Id at 704. 

149 Narragansett, 19 F.3d at 704 (citing Walt v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259, 266 (1981)). 

iso Ysleta de/ Sur, 36 F.3d at 1335. 

isi Rhode Island v. Narragansett Tribe of Indians, 816 F. Supp. 796, 804 (D.R.I. 1993) (holding that, for purposes of 

gaming, the IGRA is a specific act and the tribe's settlement act is a general act), aff'd 19 F.3d 685. 

isz Narragansett, 19 F.3d at 704 n.21. 

ISJ Restoration Act, supra note 2, Title. 

IS4 See Part 1.8, supra. 

19 

Attachment A 
statutes that finds that the IGRA impliedly repeals Section 107 of the Restoration Act 

nevertheless leaves the core of the Restoration Act intact. 155 Moreover, the IGRA filled the legal 

and jurisdictional gap that existed at the time the Restoration Act was enacted, further mitigating 

any harm from finding an implied repeal of Section 107. On the other hand, the IGRA by its 

plain language was intended to apply to all Indian tribes, 156 and one of its stated puwoses was "to 

expressly preempt the field in the governance of gaming activities on Indian lands" 1 7 Although 

Congress has expressly exempted certain tribes from the operation of the IGRA,1 58 to find such 

an exemption without any express statutory exemption would undermine the goal of a 

"comprehensive regulatory framework" 159 the IGRA. 

Finally, our conclusion that the IGRA effects an implied repeal of the gaming provisions of the 

Restoration Act is the only conclusion that is consistent with the Indian canon of construction. 

When choosing between two reasonable interpretations of a statute enacted for the benefit of 

Indians, the Indian canon itself is not dispositive of the issue, but rather, it is an essential lens 

through which statute's text, "the 'surrounding circumstances,' and the 'legislative history' are to 

be examined."160 The IGRA is a statute enacted for the benefit oflndians and Indian tribes. 161 

Although the Fifth Circuit had previously recognized the role that the Indian canon plays in 

interpreting stat11tes enacted for the benefit oflndi~n trihes, 162 it did not employ, or even 

acknowledge, the relevance of the Indian canon to the determination of whether the IGRA 

governs gaming on the Tribe's reservation and tribal lands. Therefore, we depart from the Fifth 

Circuit and apply the construction that favors the Tribe. 

We conclude that the IGRA effects an implied repeal of Section 107 of the Restoration Act. In 

doing so, however, we note that our opinion does nothing to undermine the gaming prohibitions 

that currently exist in Texas law. The State already provides for bingo, which is the functional 

equivalent of the Class II gaming governed by the gaming ordinance that the Tribe submitted to 

u~ Cf Narragansett, 19 F.3d at 704 (reading the IGRA and the settlement act at issue such that the IGRA prevailed 

"leaves the heart of the Settlement Act untouched"). 

156 25 U.S.C. § 2703(5) ("The term 'Indian tribe' means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or 

community oflndians which -(A) is recognized as eligible by the Secretary for the special programs and services 

provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians, and (B) is recognized as possessing 

powers of self-government" (emphasis added).). 

157 1988 Senate IGRA Report, supra note 36, at 6. 

158 See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. § 9411 (the JGRA does not apply to the Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina); 25 U.S.C. § 

1708(b) (Narragansett settlement lands are not "Indian lands" for purposes of the IGRA); see also Passamaquoddy, 

75 F.3d 784 (holding that savings clause in the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, paired with the IGRA 's lack of 

any specific reference to any applicability in the State of Maine, effectively exempted tribes within the State of 

Maine from operation of the IGRA). 

159 Wells Fargo Bank, 658 F.3d at 687. 

160 Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584, 586 (1977)(quoting Maltz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481, 505 (1973)). 

161 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1) (among purposes of the IGRA is to "promot[e] tribal economic development, selfsufficiency, and strong tribal governments"); see also Artichoke Joe's Cal. Grand Casino v. Norton, 353 F.3d 712, 

730 (9th Cir. 2003) ("IGRA is undoubtedly a statute passed for the benefit oflndian tribes" (citing IGRA's 

declaration of policy contained in 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1))). 

162 Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Butterworth, 658 F.2d 310, 316 (1981) ("The Supreme Court ... has stated that statutes 

passed for the benefit of dependent Indian tribes ... are to be liberally construed, doubtful expressions being 

resolved in favor of the Indians" (quoting Bryan, 426 U.S. at 392)). 

20 

Attachment A 
the NIGC. Under the !GR.A, the Tribe may not engage in Class III gaming unless it first reaches 

a compact with the State. In other words, our conclusion that the IGRA governs gaming on the 

Tribe's reservation and tribal lands preserves the authority of both the Tribe and the State to 

pursue their respective public policies toward gaming. 

Ill. CONCLUSION 

A comprehensive reading of the interplay between the Restoration Act and the IGRA leads us to 

conclude that the IGRA applies to the Ysleta de! Sur Pueblo. The Restoration Act was enacted 

in order to restore the Federal trust relationship with the Y sleta del Sur Pueblo and the Alabama 

and Coushatta Tribes in Texas. Because it was enacted when there was a great deal of 

uncertainty concerning the law of Indian gaming, section 107 of the Act was drafted to fill any 

gap in the law. That gap, however, was subsequently filled by the enactment of the IGRA, 

scarcely one year after the Restoration Act. 

Because Section 107 of the Restoration Act contains enforcement provisions that are at odds 

with the IGRA, the two statutes cannot be harmonized. In that conflict, the IGRA prevails and 

effects an implied repeal of Section I 07 of the Restoration Act. Our conclusion is consistent 

with the rule that favors the later-enacted statute, which in this case is the IGRA. In addition, an 

implied repeal of Section I 07 leaves the core of the Restoration Act intact, while an implied 

exception to the IGRA would undermine the national regulatory scheme at that statute's core, 

and undermine its goal of providing opportunities for tribal economic development. This 

interpretation is consistent with the text of the IGRA, the legislative histories of both the 

Restoration Act and the IGRA, and the Indian canon of construction. 

Therefore, in answer to your question, we conclude that the Restoration Act does not prohibit the 

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo from gaming on its Indian lands under IGRA. 

z ' 

Venus McGhee Prince 

Deputy Solicitor for Indian Affairs 

21 

Attachment A 
WHEREAS, 

WHERl:AS, 

WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 

NOW, THEREF 

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 

TRIBAL RESOLUTION 

TC-021-14 

Amending No 00492, the 

Class II Tribal Gaming Ordinance 

the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (lhe "Pueblo') Is a federally recognized Indian Tribe possessing 

!he Inherent sovereign powers of Stllf-governance and exercising power and euthorlly 

over the lands within tha exterior boundaries of the Pueblo's Indian Reservation and its 

federal lrust lands; and, 

the Tribal Council ('Counclr) of the Pueblo, is the duly constftJJted tradltlonal governing 

body of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo exercising all Inherent governmental powet, fiscal 

authority, end ltibal sovereignty as recognized In secllons 101 and 104 of the Act ot 

August 16, 1987 (Iha Ys!eta del Sur Pueblo RestoreUon Act, 101 Stal 666, Public Law 

No. 100-89}; and, 

the Pueblo has operated from time Immemorial as a Native American polltlcal sovetelgn 

without organic or written cooslilutlon, charter, or by-laws; and, · 

the Pueblo governs Itself by-oral tradition; end, 

2. 

~,~f.U]g~! Y:eta del Sur Pueblo Tribal Council as follows: 

·- t the~ e7w shell be Incorporated herein and made part of lhe 

Resolutlon; and, 

That all actlon of Tribal Coun<:ll in adopting end. amending Tribal Bingo 

Ordinance 00492 as approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission are 

hereby ratified; and, 

3. That Tribal Ordinance No. T0-001-14, which amends Tribal Bingo Ordinance 

00492 as approved by the NeHonel Indian Gaming Commission, a true end 

correct copy of which Is aUached hereto as Exhibit "A' end, by reference, Is 

Incorporated herein for au purposee as If set forth at length, Is hereby enacted lo 

be effective immediately. 

ADOPTED this the 18111 day of Marcil, 2014. 

CERTIFIC~tioN 

I, the undersigned, Governor/Lt. Governor of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo hereby certify that the 

members of Ys(eta del Sur Pueblo Tribal Council were contacted lndlvlduany on the 18"' day of March 

2014, and that-5-- voted for, -0-- opposed, and _Q__ abstained. 

EXHIBIT 

A 

; 

i 

i 

I 

, 

1 

I 

I 

' 

' I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

l 

1· 

I 

I 

! 

I 

i 

; 
TRIBAL ORDINANCE NO. T0-001·14 

CLASS II TRIBAL GAIMING ORDINANCE 

{Amending Trlbal Bingo Ordinance 00492) 

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Tribal Council (the "Council") as the duly constituted 

traditional governing body of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (the "Pueblo") a federally recognized Indian 

Tribe, exercising all inherent governmental powers, fiscal authority and tribal sovereignty as recognized 

Jn the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Restoration Act (Public Law 100-89 as codified In u.s.c. § 1300g, 

hereinafter the "Restoration Act''), and its lawful authority to provide for health, safety, morals, welfare, 

tribal economic development and self-sufficiency of the Pueblo, the Council of the Pueblo hereby enacts 

this ordinance for the purpose of regulating land use of Tribal trust and fee lands for the reasons stated 

in the attached "Class II Tribal Gaming Ordinance." Therefore, be it resolved and ordained by the 

Council of the Pueblo: 

That the attached "Class II Tribal Gaming Ordinance," which, by reference, is incorporated 

herein as if set forth at length, is hereby adopted to be effective immediately. 

ATTEST: _/) 

ay~aml!fi Title: ft Et 

oate: vqarDh I Z1 ;}0/l/ 
YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO 

CLASS II TRIBAL GAMING ORDINANCE 

No. 00492 

AS AMENDED 
YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO 

CLASS ff TRIBAL GAMING ORDINANCE 

No. 00492 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section 1. !!!!!. ...................•.........................................................••..................... 3 

Section 2. Findings ......................................................................................................... 3 

Section 3. Purpose ........................................................................................................... 3 

I. General Provisions .......................................................................................... 4 

Section 4. Definitions ••••.•••••••..•.••••••..• , ................................................................. , .............. 4 

Section 5. Class II Gaming Authorization and Regulation ....................................... 10 

Section 6. Exclusive Ownership by Pueblo ............................................................... 10 

Section 7. Use of Revenue from Class II Gaming Activities .................................... 10 

Section 8. Gaming Facilities ............................................................ n ................. 11 

Section 9. Persons Under the Age of Twenty-One (21), Employees Prohlbited .... 11 

Section 10. Prizes: Assignments and Forfeiture ................................................. 11 

11. Administration .•..•.•..•..•• ,. ••••.•• , ................. , ............................... , ...................... -... 12 

Section 11. Vsleta del Sur Pueblo Regulatory Commission ............................... 12 

Section 12. Licensing ......................... ,.111 ............................ 111 .111u•••••••••••H•&1••••••• .. •·• 15 

Section 13. Background Investigation of Gaming Employees ............................. 19 

Section 14. Management Contracts .................................................................... 25 

Ill. Class II Games Generally ............... -............................................................ 25 

Section 15. Class II Games Permitted ................................................................ 25 

Section 16. Bingo Game Cards .......................................................................... 25 

Section 17. Plaver Limitation ...................................... , ........................................ 25 

Section 18. Entry Prohibited ••.••••••••••••..••• , ......................................................... 26 

Section 19. Hours of Operation; Approval by Regulatory Commission .............. 26 

Section 20. Patron Disputes 11••••· ................................................................................ ,., .... 26 

IV. Records and Audits ........................................................................................ 26 

' ' I 

i 

r 
Section 21. Records Maintenance .............................................................................. 26 

Section 22. Independent Audits ......................... u .......................... u ....... u.,... ... , .... ., ........ 27 

V. Violations .......................... 9.~···········································································27 

Section 23. Crimes and Civil Penalties .... , ........................................................... 27 

Section 24. Enforcement ................................................................................... 29 

VI .. Validity of Ordinance ·······-·-·········,, .................................................. , •..•••..... 29 

Section 25. Severability .................................................................................... 29 

Section 26. Amendments ................................................................. a ............... 29 

Section 27. Effective Date of Ordinance ......................... u ................................... 29 

2 
YSLETADELSURPUEBLO 

CLASS II TRIBAL GAMING ORDINANCE 

N0.00492 

AS AMENDED 

The Tribal Council is the duly constituted traditional governing body of the Ysleta del 

Sur Pueblo. The Pueblo is a federally recognized Indian Tribe, exercising all inherent 

governmental powers, fiscal authority and tribal sovereignty as confirmed in the Ysleta del 

Sur Pueblo Restoration Act (Public Law 100-89 codified in 25 USC § 1300g. Under its 

authority to provide for the health, safety, morale, welfare, tribal economic 

development and self-sufficiency of the Pueblo, the Council adopted the Bingo 

Ordinance No. 00492 on May 6, 1992, pursuant to the requirements of the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act (Public Law 100-497, 25 USC § 2701 , et. seq.) The Council 

adopted the 1992 Bingo Ordinance for the purpose of regulating the conduct of Class II 

Gaming on the Pueblo's Lands. The Council amended the Bingo Ordinance on October 

16, 1992, April 15, 1993, July 22, 1993, October 5, 1993, and December 10, 2013, with 

1he last amended Ordinance approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission on 

October 19, 1993. The Council again amends this Ordinance this 181

h day of March, 2014, 

as follows. 

Section 1. Tftle. 

This Ordinance shall be known as the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Class II Tribal Gaming 

Ordinance, or the Gaming Ordinance. 

Section 2. Findings. 

The Council finds that: 

1. The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo has the exclusive authority to operate, license, and 

regulate Class II Gaming activities on its Tribal Lands under the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act; and 

2. It Is essential to the health, safety and general welfare of the Ysleta def Sur 

Pueblo and the visitors to its Tribal Lands that standards and regulations be 

promulgated to govern the conduct of Class II gaming activities on Tribal Lands. 

Section 3. Purpose. 

The purposes of this Gaming Ordinance, as amended, are to: 

1. Provide standards and regulations governing the conduct of Class II gaming 

activities on Tribal Lands; 

3 

l 

, ... 
2. Promote tribal economic development; 

3. Enhance employment opportunities for tribal members; 

4. Strengthen the economy of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo; and, 

5. Generate revenue for use in improving the health, education and general welfare 

of members of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo. 

I. General Provisions 

Section 4. Definitions. 

1. "Bingo" means the game of chance (whether or not electronic, computer or 

other technological aids are used) which is played for prizes, including monetary prizes, 

with cards bearing numbers or other designations; in which the holder of the card 

covers such numbers or designations when objects, similarly numbered or designated, 

are drawn or electronically determined; and in which the game is won by the first person 

covering a previously designated arrangement of numbers or designations on such 

cards. "Bingo" includes, If played at the same location, pull~tabs, lotto, punch boards, tip 

jars, instant bingo, and other games similar to bingo. 

2. "Bingo Occasion" shall mean a single session or gathering at. which a series of 

successive bingo games are played. 

3. "Class I Gaming" means soclal games played solely for prizes of minimal value or 

traditional forms of Indian gaming engaged in by individuals as a part of, or in connection 

with, tribal ceremonies or celebrations. 

4. "Class II Gaming" means all forms of gaming which are defined as Class II Gaming 

in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, P.L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C § 2703 (?)(A) ("IGRA") 

and by the regulations promulgated by the National Indian Gaming Commission at 25 

C.F.R. § 502.3. 

5. "Commission" means the National Indian Gaming Commission established and 

existing pursuant to the Gaming Regulatory Act. 

6. "Electronic, computer or other technological aid" shall mean any machine or 

device such as telephones, cables, televisions, screens, satellites, bingo blowers, 

electronic player stations, or electronic cards for participants in bingo games and which: 

(I) assist a player or the playing of a game; (ii) is not an electronic or electromechanical 

facsimile; and, (iii) is operated according to applicable Federal Communications law. 

Such machines or devices broaden the participation levels in a common game, facilitate 

communication between and among gaming sites, or allow a player to play a game with 

or against other players rather that with or against a machine. 

4 

I• 

; 
7. "Equipment" means the receptacle and numbered objects drawn from it, the 

master board upon which such objects are placed as drawn; the cards or sheets 

bearing numbers or their designations to be covered and the objects used to cover 

them; the board or sign, however operated, used to announce or display the numbers or 

designations as they are drawn; the public address system; and other articles essential 

to the operation, conduct, and playing of Bingo or other class II games. 

8. "Game Card11 and "Bingo Game Card" means a regular or special Bingo card. 

9. 11Games Similar to Bingo" means any game in the same location as bingo 

constituting a variant on the game of bingo, provided that the game is not house 

banked, and permits players to compete against each other for a common prize or 

prizes. 

10. "Gaming Employee" means any natural person employed in the operation or 

management of the Pueblo Gaming Operation, whether employed by or contracted to the 

Pueblo or by any person or enterprise providing on or off-site services to the Pueblo 

within or without the Gaming Facility regarding any Class II gaming activity, including, 

but not limited to, Key Employees, Gaming Operation employees, Management 

Companies, and their Principals; and any other natural person whose employment 

duties require or authorize access to restricted areas of the Pueblo Gaming Operation not 

otherwise opened to the public. 

11. "Gaming Regulatory Act" or "IGRA" means the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 

Public Law 100-497 as codified in 25 U.S.C § 2701 et seq. 

12. "Gross Revenue" means the total revenue from the conduct of the Pueblo Gaming 

Operation. 

13. "Gaming Services" means the providing of any goods or services to the Pueblo 

directly in connection with the operation of Class II gaming in a Gaming Facility, 

including equipment, maintenance, or security services for the Gaming Facility. 

14. "Indian" shall mean an individual as defined by 25 U.S.C § 2201 (2) of an Indian tribe 

as defined by the Nation Indian Gaming Commission Regulations at 25 C.F.R. 502.13. 

15. "Instant Bingo" means a game of chance whereby the player purchases a card 

and removes paper slips, which act as concealing flaps, revealing numbers or symbols 

or numbers and letters, and on the reverse side of the card are printed the winning 

combination such that the player need only compare the sides to determine If and what 

they may have won. 

16. "Key Employee" means: 

a. A person who performs one or more of the following functions: 

5 

I 

:· .. 

' 
(1) Bingo Caller; 

(2) Counting Room Supervisor; 

(3) Bingo Chief of Security; 

(4) Custodian of gaming supplies or cash; 

(5) Floor Manager; 

(6) Pit Boss; 

(7) Dealer; 

(8) Approver of credit; or 

(9) Custodian of equipment including persons with access to 

cash and accounting records; 

b. If not otherwise Included, any other person whose total cash compensation 

is In excess of $50,000 per year, or, 

c. If not otherwise included, the four most highly compensated persons in the 

Gaming Operation. 

d. Any other person designated by the Pueblo as a Key Employee. 

17. "Lotto" means a game of chance with cards bearing numbers or other 

designations, in rows of 9, in which the player holding the card covers such numbers or 

designations when objects similarly numbered or designated are drawn or otherwise 

randomly determined, in which the game is won by the first player to cover a predesignated arrangement on the card. 

18. 

11Net Revenues" means the gross gaming revenues from the Pueblo Gaming 

Operation, less (a) amounts paid out as, or paid for, prizes; and (b) total gaming-related 

Operating Expenses, excluding management fees. 

19. "Management Contract" means a management contract within the meaning of 25 

U.S.C. § 2711. 

20. "Minimum Internal Control Standards" or "MICS" means detailed procedural 

controls designed to protect the assets of the Enterprise, ensure the accuracy and 

reliability of accounting methods, and pro1ect the integrity of gaming on Tribal lands. 

21 . "Non-Banking Card Garnes" means any card game in which two or more players 

play against each other and the players do not wager against the house. 

22. "Operating Expenses" means expenses of the Enterprise, necessary for the 

operation of the Enterprise and which include, but are not necessarily limited to, the 

following: 

a. The payment of salaries, wages and benefit programs for employees 

engaged at the Enterprise: 

6 

I 

I · 

J 

l 

I 

I 

I 

! 

. 

i 

I 

! 

(. 
b. Materials and supplies for the Enterprise; 

c. Utilities; 

d. Routine remodeling, repairs and maintenance of the Gaming Facility; 

e. Interest on installment contract purchases by the Enterprise; 

f. Insurance and bonding; 

g. Advertising and marketing, including busing and transportation of 

employees to the Gaming Facility; 

h. Professional fees; 

i. Security costs; 

j. Reasonable and necessary travel expenses for employees of the Pueblo, 

the Enterprise and of a management company pursuant to a Management 

Contract. subject to an approved budget; 

k. Equipment which costs less than $500 per item or unit; 

I. Trash removal; 

m. Costs of goods sold; 

n. Cost depreciation as defined by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles 

("GAAP"); 

o. Other expenses designated as Operating Expenses in the annual budget 

of the Enterprise: 

p. Expenses specifically designated as Operating Expenses in a 

Management Contract and ordinarily considered as such in accordance 

with GAAP; 

q. Such other expenses which are determined by an annual audit to be 

operating expenses; and 

r. Any payments Jn lieu of taxes made to any governmental entity. 

23. "Person" means any individual, receiver, administrator, executor, assignee, 

trustee in bankruptcy, trust, estate, firm, partnership, joint venture, club, company, joint 

stock company, business trust, corporation, association, society, or any group of 

Individuals acting as a unit, whether mutual cooperative, fraternal or nonprofit doing 

7 
business within the Indian Lands. The Pueblo, Tribal CounciJ, or the Regulatory 

Commission is not within the definition of person. 

24. ''Player" or "Patron" means any person who is a customer or guest of the Gaming 

Enterprise participating in Class II gaming activity. 

25. "Principal" means with respect to any enterprise: (i) each of its officers and 

directors; (ii) each of its principal management employees, including any chief executive 

officer, chief financial officer, chief operating officer, or general manager; (iii) each of its 

owners or partners, if an unincorporated business; (iv) each of its shareholders who own 

more than ten percent of the shares of the corporation, if a corporation; (v) each person 

other than a banking Institution who has provided financing for the enterprise constituting 

more than ten percent of the total financing of the enterprise; and, (vi) any person or 

entity set forth and described in 25 CFR § 537 .1. 

26. "Primary Management Officials'' or uPMO" means: 

a. The person having management responsibility for a management contract; 

b. Any person who has authority to: 

i. hire and fire employees; or 

ii. set up working policy for the Gaming Enterprise, or 

c. The chief financial officer or other person who has financial management 

resp ons lb lllty. 

27. "Prize11 means any U.S. currency, cash or other property or thing of value awarded 

to a player or patron, or received by a player or patron as a result of their participation in 

Class II gaming activity. 

28. "Pueblo" or "Tribe" means the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo being duly recognized by the 

Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and other agencies of the United States of 

America, and having special rights of self-government, (all as set forth in the Ysleta del 

Sur Pueblo Restoration Act, Public Law 100-89, 25 USC 1300g), and its authorized 

officials, agents and representatives. 

29. "Pueblo Gaming Facility" or "Gaming Facility" means any location in which Class 

II gaming as authorized by this Gaming Ordinance is conducted on the Pueblo's Tribal 

Lands. 

30. "Pueblo Gaming Enterprise" or "Enterprise" means an economic entity authorized 

to conduct Class II Gaming Operations and related activities on the Pueblo's Reservation 

pursuant to this Gaming Ordinance. A Gaming Enterprise may be operated by the Ysleta 

del Sur Pueblo directly or by a Person under a Management Contract. 

8 
31. "Pueblo Lands" or "Tribal Lands" means all lands within the limits of the Ysleta 

del Sur Pueblo Reservation; and any lands title to which is either held In trust by the 

United States for the benefit of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo or individual Ysleta del Sur 

Pueblo tribal member subject to restriction by the United States against alienation 

and over which the Pueblo exercises governmental power. 

32. "Pueblo Tribal Member" means an individual who rs recognized as a member of 

the Ysleta def Sur Pueblo as determined by the Pueblo. 

33. "Pull Tabs" means factory covered tickets which are purchased and opened by 

players or patrons revealing a predetermined winning arrangement. 

34. "Punch Board" means a small board that has many holes, each filled with a rolled 

up printed slip to be punched out upon payment of player fee, in an effort to obtain a slip 

that entitles the player to a designated prize. 

35. "Regular Bingo Card" means a bingo card or bingo paper issued to a player upon 

payment of admission fee which affords a player the opportunity to participate in all 

regular bingo games played at a bingo occasion. 

36. "Regulatlons" means Rules and Regulations promulgated from time to time by 

the Regulatory Commission pursuant to the Gaming Regulatory Act, and Tribal 

Regulations, and this Gaming Ordinance, as amended, as the case may be. 

37. 

11Reservation11 means Ysleta del Sur Pueblo lands: 

a. held by the Pueblo on August 18, 1987; 

b. held in trust by the State or by the Texas Indian Commission for the 

benefit of the Pueblo on such date; 

c. held in trust for the benefit of the Pueblo by the Secretary under 25 USC 

1300g- 4(g)(2); and, 

d. subsequent to such date, acquired and held in trust by the Secretary for 

the benefit of the Pueblo. 

38. "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Department of the Interior. 

39. "Special Bingo Card" means a disposable, specially marked bingo card or bingo 

paper which affords a player the opportunity to participate in a special bingo game for 

special prizes. 

40. "Special Bingo Game" means any bingo game which is not a regular bingo game 

and which is played with special bingo cards or bingo paper for special prizes. 

9 
41 . "State" means the State of Texas. 

42. 'Ysleta def Sur Pueblo Regulatory Commission11 or "Regulatory Commission" 

means such agency of the Pueblo as the Pueblo may from time to time designate as the 

single Tribal agency responsible for regulatory oversight of entertainment and gaming 

activities conducted by the Gaming Enterprise. 

43. "Tip Jars" means a game of chance, wherein a person upon payment of a fee, Is 

permitted to reach into, or tip a jar containing printed slips, and extract one slip in an 

effort to obtain a slip that entitles the player to a designated prize. 

44. "Tribal Building Inspector" means the person appointed as Tribal Building 

Inspector, his qualified agent or if none, such other person as the Council designates or 

appoints, to perform the duties of a building inspector, including but not limited to, 

enforcement of applicable building, safety and health codes. 

45. "Tribal Council" or "Council" means the Pueblo's governing body as recognized 

by the Texas Indian Commission on August 18, 1987, and such tribal council's 

successors. The Tribal Council of the Pueblo consists of the Cacique, the Governor, the 

Lieutenant Governor, and five Council members, who possess plenary power over the 

people, land and property within the exterjor boundaries of the Pueblo. 

46. "Tribal Court" means the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Tribal Court. 

Section 5. Class II Gaming Authorization and Regulation. 

Operation of Class II gaming is authorized on Indian lands ·and shall be subject to the 

provisions of this Gaming Ordinance. All Class ll gaming shall be regulated by the Pueblo 

through the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo Regulatory Commission. and shall only be operated 

consistent with the provisions of this Gaming Ordinance. 

Section 6. Exclusive Ownership by Pueblo. 

Class II gaming shall be owned and operated exclusively by the Pueblo, which shall 

have 1he sole proprietary interest in and responsibility for the conduct of any Gaming 

Operation. 

Section 7. Use of Revenue from Class II Gaming Activities. 

1. Net revenues from Class II Gaming activities shall be used by the Pueblo to: 

a. donate to charitable organizations; 

b. fund tribal government operations or programs; 

c. provide for the general welfare of the Tribe or Tribal members; 

10 

I 

I 

! I-· 

i 
d. promote tribal economic development; 

e. fund operations of local tribal government agencies; andlor 

f. other lawful purposes. 

g. If the Tribe elects to make per capita payments to tribal members, it shall 

authorize such payments only upon approval by the Secretary of the 

Interior under 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(3). 

Section 8. Gaming Facilities. 

1. To ensure that the environment and the public safety and welfare are adequately 

protected, each Gaming Facility shall be constructed and maintained in compliance with 

the minimum standards of any applicable Building Code adopted by the Pueblo. 

2. Each Gaming Facility shall be subject to inspection to insure compliance, 

annually or on such basis as the Tribal Building Inspector, or if none. Tribal Council, 

determines necessary and appropriate. 

3. The Pueblo shall construct, maintain and operate each Gaming Facility in a 

manner that adequately protects the environment and the public's health and 

safety. 

Section 9. Persons Under the Age of Twenty-One (21}, Employees Prohibited. 

1. No person under the age of twenty-one (21) years shall be permitted to play any 

Class 11 game. 

2. No person who is employed at a Gaming Facility may play any game conducted 

therein while on duty, except in the course of employment, on behalf of the employer, in 

which event employee status shall be clearly identifiable to the patron players. 

Section 10. Prizes: Assignments and Forfeiture. 

1. Non Assignable, exception. 

a. The right of any person to a prize shall not be assigned except that 

payment of any prize may be made to the estate of a deceased prize winner or to a 

person pursuant to an order of the Tribal Court. 

2. Forfeiture. 

a. Any unclaimed prize of the Pueblo Gaming Enterprise shall be retained for 

ninety (90) days after the prize is available to be claimed. Any person who fails to claim 

11 
a prize during such time shall forfeit all rights to the prize, and the amount of the prize 

shall be awarded to the Enterprise. 

b. Any prize won by a person under the age of twenty-one (21) shall be 

forfeited as a violation of Section 9 of this Gaming Ordinance. Any such prize shall be 

awarded to the Enterprise, and the approximate consideration paid by such person shall 

be refunded to such person. 

II. Administration 

Section 11. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Regulatory Commission. 

1. Establishment and Composition. 

a. Pursuant to Article 62 of the Tribal Ordinance T0-001 -10 as amended by 

Tribal Resolution TC-023-10, the Ysfeta del Sur Pueblo Regulatory Commission, shall 

provide for the orderly development, administration and regulation of Pueblo 

entertainment and gaming activities conducted by the Gaming Enterprise. For the 

purposes of this section, and only this section, "Commission" means the "Regulatory 

Commission" as defined in this Ordinance. 

b. The Regulatory Commission shall consist of three members, shall be 

appointed in accordance with Article 62 of the Tribal Ordinance T0-001-10 as amended 

by Tribal Resolution TC-023-10, and shall include a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and 

Secretaryrrreasurer. 

2. Qualifications and Appointment. 

a. Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor subject to the 

approval of the Tribal Council, and may be a person other than a tribal member. All 

Commissioners as minimum quaHfications shall: 

(1) Possess a bachelor's degree in business administration, 

management, marketing, accounting, law or other relevant field or high school diploma 

with at least four years' experience in a high regulated industry In the field of business 

management, compliance or regulation; 

(2) Be at least 21 years of age; 

(3) Possess a basic knowledge and understanding of entertainment 

and gaming activities authorized on the Reservation; 

(4) Have the abilfty to interpret regulations and conduct administrative 

hearings; and 

12 
(5) Have the ability to observe restrictions concerning conflicts of 

interest and confidentiality. 

b. No individual who.has been convicted of, pied guilty to or pied no contest 

to a felony or a gambling-related offense or any crime of moral turpitude may serve as a 

Commissioner. 

c. No member of the Tribal Council may be a member of the Commission 

either during a Tribal Council member's term or for a period of one year thereafter. 

d. All Commissioners shall be appointed for indefinite terms, during which 

they must maintain eligibility. 

e. In the event of a vacancy on the Commission, the Governor may appoint 

any other qualified person to fill the vacancy, provided that any proposed appointee 

shall be subject to the qualification requirements for Commissioners. 

3. Powers and Duties. 

a. The Commission shall administer the provisions of the Gaming Ordinance 

and shall have, pursuant to Tribal Ordinance T0-001-10 and Tribal Resolution TC-023-

10, the power to: 

(1) Promulgate regulations governing the licensing, conduct and 

operation of Pueblo entertainment and gaming activities as are consistent with the 

purposes of the Gaming Ordinance, including establishing minimum internal control 

standards for Class II gaming activities; 

(2) Investigate violations of this Gaming Ordinance governing the 

licensure, operation or conduct of Pueblo entertainment and gaming activities; the 

regulations promulgated by the Commission; any minimum internal control standards, 

and any condftion, term or restriction of a license issued by the Commission; 

(3) Conduct, or cause to be conducted, background investigations and 

criminal records checks on ail applicants and licensees; 

(4) Process all license applications, determine the suitability of all 

applicants, issue and deny licenses; 

(5) Levy fines and to limit, condition, suspend, restrict or revoke any 

license which the Commission has issued, either upon complaint or upon its own 

motion, and to enforce this Gaming Ordinance and the regulations promulgated by the 

Commission; 

13 
(6) Obtain all information from applicants, licensees and other persons 

which .the Commission deems necessary for the regulation of Pueblo entertainment and 

gaming activities; 

(7) Issue subpoenas for the appearance or production of persons, 

records and things in connection with applications before the Commission or in 

connection with disciplinary or contested cases under consideration by the Commission; 

(8) Investigate and conduct hearings upon complaints charging 

violations of this Gaming Ordinance or the Commission regulations, or any condition, 

term or restriction of a license issued by the Commission, and to impose appropriate 

penalties and fines, including injunctive relief; 

(9) Conduct hearings at the request of an applicant or licensee who 

petitions for review of an adverse ruling; 

(10) Inspect and examine, with or without notice, all Pueblo 

entertainment and gaming operations and all premises wherein entertainment and 

gaming activity devices or equipment are located, and to seize, remove and impound, 

pursuant to a Commission order, from such premises any equipment, devices, supplies, 

books or records for the purpose of examination or inspection as necessary to enforce 

the provisions of this Gaming Ordinance and the Commission regulations; 

(11) Review, inspect, examine and copy all papers, books and records 

of the Pueblo Gaming Enterprise related to the enforcement of any provision of this 

Gaming Ordinance, the Commission regulations and any condition, term or restriction of 

a license issued by the Commission, and to impound or remove, pursuant to a 

Commission order, all such papers, books and records when deemed necessary for 

their preservation, inspection and examination; 

(12) Establish minimum internal controls for the Pueblo Gaming 

Enterprise and to audit each operation's compliance with said standards; 

(13) Establish and correct license fees and fees for performing 

background investigations on applicants for licenses and on other persons for whom the 

Commission requires a background investigation; 

(14) Ensure that an annual independent audit of the Pueblo's Gaming 

Enterprise is conducted and presented to the Tribal Council; 

(15) Propose an annual budget for Commission operations to the Tribal 

Council; 

(16) Participate on behalf of or in conjunction with the Pueblo in litigation 

brought pursuant to the Restoration Act; and 

14 
(17) Exercise such other incidental powers as may be necessary to 

ensure the safe and orderly regulation of the Pueblo's Gaming Enterprise. 

b. Before seizing, removing or impounding any devices, equipment, books, 

records or any other property of the Pueblo Gaming Enterprise, the Commission shall 

Issue a pre-hearing order based upon a specific factual finding that any person has 

failed to comply with this Gaming Ordinance or any Commission regulation or minimum 

internal control standard. The Commission shall afford the person subject to the order, 

an opportunity for a hearing with the Commission no later than 30 days after issuance of 

the order. 

c. The Commission shall not negotiate or execute any capital equipment 

purchase, contract, lease, deed, mortgage or other instrument in the name of or on 

behalf of the Pueblo without prior authorization of the Tribal Council, except that it Is 

authorized to execute purchase orders and slmilar documents necessary for day to day 

operation of the Commission. The Commission shall not enter into loans on its behalf or 

on behalf of the Pueblo and no evidence of indebtedness shall be issued in the name of 

the Commission or Pueblo unless authorized by the Tribal Council. All checks, drafts, 

purchase orders, or other orders tor payment of money from the Commlssion must be 

executed pursuant to any Pueblo procurement policies for the Commission as 

established by the Tribal Council. 

Section 12. Licensing. 

1. Authority to License. 

The Regulatory Commission shall have the sole and exclusive authority to grant, renew, 

deny, revoke, suspend, Hmit, or modify gaming licenses and regulate Class II gaming 

activltles on Tribal Lands as permitted by this Gaming Ordinance and applicable law. 

2. Types of Licenses to be Issued. 

The Regulatory Commission shall issue the following licenses for gaming on Tribal 

Lands: 

a. Enterprise Management License 

b. Key Employment License 

c. General Employee License 

d. Other Licenses necessary and appropriate. 

3. License Fees: Application Fees and Continuing Yearly Fees. 

15 

i 

~ -
a. Any person making application for the Pueblo gaming license pursuant to 

this Gaming Ordinance shall submit his or her application, and required forms and 

information, as set forth by the Regulatory Commission, together with an application fee 

as determined by the Regulatory Commission. The Regulatory Commission may waive 

fees in its discretion if a proponent is unable to pay fees. 

b. A Licensee shall, at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of such 

license make application for renewal, as required by the Regulatory Commission, and 

shall submit the application required forms and Information together with a renewal fee 

as determined by the Regulatory Commission, if any. 

4. License Validity: Effective Period and Place. 

a. Period. Tribal gaming licenses shall be valid and effective for a period of 

one (1) year from the date of issue, unless same is sooner suspended, or revoked for 

cause after notice and hearing, pursuant to this Gaming Ordinance. 

b. Place. A tribal gaming license shall be valid for any Enterprise operation 

located on the Pueblo's Tribal Lands. 

5. License: Qualification and Requirements. 

a. General. 

(1) An application to receive a license or to be found suitable to receive 

a license shall not be granted unless the Regulatory Commission is satisfied, after 

review of a background investigation that such applicant is: 

(a) A person of good character, honesty and Integrity; 

(b) A person whose prior activities, criminal record, If any, 

reputation, habits and association do not pose a threat to the 

public interest of the Tribe, its members or to the effective 

regulation of gaming, or create or enhance the dangers of 

unsuitable, unfair or illegal practices and methods and 

activities in the conducting of gaming or the carrying on of 

the business and financial arrangements incidental thereto; 

and, 

(c) In all other respects is qualified to be licensed or found 

suitable consistent with the declared policy of the Gaming 

Enterprise. 

(d) An application to receive a license or to be found suitable 

constitutes a request for a determination of the applicant's 

general character, integrity and ability to participate or 

16 
engage in, or be associated with gaming. Any written or oral 

statement made in the course of an official proceeding of the 

Regulatory Commission or the Commission established 

pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2704, by any member thereof or any 

witness testifying under oath which is relevant to the purpose 

of the proceeding is absolutely privileged and does not 

impose liability or defamation constituting a ground for 

recovery in any civil action. 

(2) No person shall be employed in a Pueblo Gaming Enterprise on 

Tribal Lands who: 

(a) Has been convicted of or who has pied guilty or nolo 

contendere to any felony within ten (10) years, or has ever 

been convicted of or has ever plead nolo contendere to any 

gaming offense, or other offense involving moral turpitude; 

or, 

(b) Is under the age of eighteen (18), except that, no person 

shall be employed as a Primary Management Official or Key 

Empfoyee, or In any position wherein the employee might be 

required to serve alcoholic beverages who is under the age 

of twenty one (21). 

(3) No person shall be employed as a Primary Management Official 

or Key Employee in a Class fl gaming activity who: 

(a) Has not first applied for and obtained a tribal gaming 

license, pursuant to the Gaming Ordinance, and, has been 

made the subject of a background investigation conducted 

by the Pueblo, its agents, or designee pursuant to the 

requirements of this Gaming Ordinance. 

(b) Is ineligible for fidelity bonding or similar insurance 

covering employee dishonesty. 

6. Primary Management Officials, Key and Other Employees; Identification. 

Every person employed at a Gaming Facility operated on Tribal Lands shalt wear an 

Identification card issued by the Regulatory Commission which conspicuously states the 

place of employment. the first name of the person and their position of employment. The 

card shall include a photo, first name and four digit identification number unique to the 

individual which shall also include a Pueblo seal or signature. and a date of expiration. 

17 
7. License Suspension and Revocation. 

a. Suspension and Revocation notices for gaming employees, Key 

Employees and Primary Management Officials shall be as follows: 

(1) The Regulatory Commission reserves the right to suspend or 

revoke a gaming licensed to a gaming employee. 

(2) Any Key Employee or Primary Management Official gaming license 

Issued by the Regulatory Commission shall be suspended, without prior notice, if the 

Commission, after notification by the Regulatory Commission of the issuance of a 

license, and after appropriate review, indicates that a Primary Management Official or 

Key Employee does not meet the standards established and set forth herein, pursuant 

to 25 U.S.C. § 2710. 

(3) Upon receipt of such notification by the Commission, the 

Regulatory Commission shall immediately suspend the license and shall provide the 

licensee with written notice of suspension and proposed revocation. 

(4) A licensee, whose gaming license is suspended or terminated, 

shall be notified of the time, and place for a hearing on the proposed revocation of a 

license. 

(5) A right to a hearing under this part shall vest only upon receipt of a 

license granted under this Ordinance. 

8. Revocation Notice. 

a. The Revocation Notice shall include: 

(1) The effective date of suspension and/ or revocation; 

(2) The reason(s) for the suspension and/ or revocation; 

(3) The right of the licensee to appeal the suspension and/ or 

revocation to the Tribal Court within ten (10) days of the licensee's 

receipt of the revocation notice. 

b. A copy of the suspension and/ or revocation notice for Key Employees or 

Primary Management Official licenses shall be sent to the Commission through the 

appropriate Regional office. 

9. Revocation Hearing. 

a. After a revocation hearing, the Pueblo shall decide to revoke or to reinstate 

a gaming license. The Pueblo shall notify the Commission of its decision regarding the 

18 

i 

L 
revocation or reinstatement of a Key Employee or Primary Management Official license 

within forty~five (45) days of receiving notification from the Commission pursuant to 

Section 13{k}-(I) of this Ordinance. 

b. A licensee may appeal the suspension and/ or revocation of his/ her 

license to the Trlbal Court by sending a written notice of appeal of the suspension 

and/or revocation to the Tribal Court and the Regulatory Commission within ten (10) days 

after the licensee receives notice that his/her license has been revoked. The notice of 

appeal shall clearly state the reason{s) why the licensee believes his/ her license should 

not be revoked. 

c. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal of the license revocation, the Tribal 

Court shall schedule a revocation hearing to be conducted within twenty (20) days of 

receipt of the licensee's notice of appeal. Written notice of the time, date and place of 

the hearing shall be delivered to the licensee no later than five days before the 

scheduled date of the hearing. 

d. The licensee, at their own cost, and the Regulatory Commission may be 

represented by legal counsel at the revocation hearlng. The licensee and the Regulatory 

Commission may present witnesses and witnesses and evidence presented by the 

opposing side. 

e. The Tribal Court shall issue its decision no later than ten ( 10) working 

days following the revocation hearing. The decision of the Tribal Court shall be final and 

conclusive. 

f. A copy of the Tribal Court's decision regarding the revocation of a license 

shall be sent to the Regulatory Commission and Commission. 

Section 13. Background Investigation of Gaming Employees. 

1. Background Investigations Prior to Employment. 

a. The Pueblo, prior to hiring a prospective gaming employee (including 

Primary Management Officials and Key Employees), shall obtain sufficient information 

and identification from the applicant to permit a thorough background investigation of 

the applicant. The applicant shall provide to the Pueblo a written release authorizing 

the Pueblo or its agents, to conduct a background investigation. 

b. Prior to providing such release, Key Employees and Primary 

Management Officials shall be notified of thelr rights under the Privacy Act of 197 4 as 

specified in 25 C.F.R. § 556.2 and as required by 25 C.F.R. § 522.2 (b). The 

application shall state: 

In compliance with the Privacy Act of 197 4, the following information is provided: 

Solicitation of the information on this form is authorized by 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. The 

19 
purpose of the requested information is to determine the eligibility of individuals to be 

granted a gaming license. The information will be used by the Tribal gaming regulatory 

authorities and by the Commission members and staff who have need for the 

information in the performance of their official duties. The Information may be disclosed 

by the Tribe or the NIGC to appropriate Federal, Tribal, State, local, or foreign law 

enforcement and regulatory agencies when relevant to civn, criminal or regulatory 

investigations or prosecutions or when pursuant to a requirement by a tribe or the NIGC 

in connection with the issuance, denial, or revocation of a gaming license, or 

investigations of activities while associated with a tribe or a gaming operation. Failure to 

consent to the disclosures Indicated in this notice will result in a tribe's being unable to 

license you for a Primary Management Official or Key Employee position. 

The disclosure of your Social Security Number (SSN) is voluntary. However, failure to 

supply a SSN may result in errors in processing your application. 

c. Additionally, prior to filling out the application, Key Employees and Primary 

Management Officials shall be notified on the application of the following: 

A false statement on any part of your license application may be grounds for denying a 

license or the suspension or revocation of a license. Also, you may be punished by fine 

or imprisonment (18 U.S.C. § 1001). 

See also, Subsection (m)(2) of this section and Part V, § 22(b) of this Ordinance. 

d. The Regulatory Commission shall be responsible for the performance of 

such background investigations. The information shall be provided f n writing to meet the 

requirements of 25 CFR § 556.4 and§ 537.1 as to background Investigations. In 

conducting a background investigation, the Pueblo and its agents shall keep confidential 

the Identity of each person interviewed in the course of the investigation. The 

information obtained shall include: 

(1) Full name, including any aliases or other names which the 

applicant has used or has ever been known whether oral or written: 

(2) Social Security number(s); 

(3) Date and place of birth; 

(4) Citizenship of the applicant; 

(5) Gender of the applicant; 

(6) All languages spoken or written by the applicant; 

(7) Currently and for the previous five (5) years an itemization or 

description of all: 

20 

I .. 

I 
(a) business and employment positions held; 

(b) any ownership interests in those businesses listed; 

(c) business and residence addresses; and 

(d) current driver's license number(s); 

(8) Provide the names and current addresses of at least three (3) 

personal references, including one personal reference who was acquainted with the 

applicant during each period of residence listed under Subsection (7)(c), above; 

{9) A current business and residence telephone number(s); 

(10) A description of any current, as well as, previous business 

relationships with Indian tribes, including ownership interests in those businesses; 

(11) A description of any existing and previous business relationships 

with the gaming industry generally, including ownership interests in those businesses; 

(12) The name and address of any licensing or regulatory agency with 

which the applicant has filed an application for a license or permit related to gaming, 

whether or not such license or permit was granted; 

(13) A description of all criminal proceedings in which the applicant was 

or is currently involved, including the following: 

(a) for each felony for which there Is a.n ongoing prosecution or a 

conviction, the charge, the name and address of the court 

involved, and the date and disposition thereof; 

(b) for each misdemeanor conviction or ongoing misdemeanor 

prosecution (excluding minor traffic violations) within ten (10) 

years as of the date of the application, the name and address 

of the court involved and the date and disposition thereof; and 

(c) for each criminal charge (excluding minor traffic charges) 

whether or not there is a conviction, if such criminal charge is 

within ten (10) years of the date of application and is not 

otherwise listed pursuant to the provisions of Subsection (a) 

and (b) above, the criminal charge, the name and address of 

the court involved and the date and disposition thereof. 

(14) The name, address and any licensing or regulatory agency with 

which the applicant has filed an application for an occupational license or permit, 

whether or not such license or permit was granted; 

21 

I· ; 

i 

. . 

i i. 

I 
(15) A current photograph; 

(16) A set of fingerprints prepared by an authorized state, local, federal 

or tribal law enforcement agency; and, 

(17) A statement as to any civil lttigation involving fraud in which the 

applicant has been involved, and a statement as to any other civil litigation in which the 

applicant has been involved within ten (10) years of the date of application. 

e. A criminal history check conducted by a Jaw enforcement agency shall 

Include a check of criminal histmy records Information maintained by the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation. 

f. When a Key Employee or Primary Management Official is employed, the 

Regulatory Commission shall maintain a complete application file containing the 

information listed under § 13( d)( 1)-(17). 

g. Before issuing a license to a Key Employee or Primary Management 

Official, the Regulatory Commission shall create and maintain an investigative report on 

each background investigation. An investigative report shall include all of the following: 

(1) Steps taken in conducting a background investigation; 

(2) Results obtained; 

(3) Conclusions reached; and 

(4) The basis for those conclusions. 

h. When a Key Employee or Primary Management Official begins 

employment for the Gaming Enterprise, the Regulatory Commission shall forward a 

completed application for employment to the Commission. 

i. Within sixty (60) days after a Key Employee or Primary Management 

Official begins work for the Gaming Enterprise, the Regulatory Commission shall submit 

a notice of results of the applicant's background investigation conducted and a copy of 

the eligibility determination to the Commission. The notice of results shall contain: 

(1) The applicanfs name, date of birth, and social security number; 

(2) The date on which the applicant began or will begin work as a Key 

Employee or Primary Management Official; 

(3) A summary of the information presented in the investigative report, 

which shall at a minimum include a listing of: 

22 
(a) Licenses that have previously been denied; 

(b) Gaming licenses that have been revoked, even if subsequently 

reinstated; 

(c) Every known criminal charge brought against the applicant 

within the last ten (10) years of the date of application; and, 

(d) Every felony of which the applicant has been convicted or any 

ongoing prosecution. 

j. If within thirty (30) days, the Commission provides the Regulatory 

Commission with a statement itemizing objections to the Issuance of a license to a Key 

Employee or to a Primary Management Official for whom the Regulatory Commission 

has provided an application and notice of results, the Regulatory Commission shall 

reconsider the application, taking into account the objections itemized by the 

Commission. The Regulatory Commission shall make the final decision whether to 

issue a license to such applicant. 

k. The Regulatory Commission may employ and license a gaming employee 

after any prospective gaming employee who represents, in writing, that he or she meets 

the standards set forth in this Section, until such time as the written report on the 

applicants' background investigation is completed. The Regulatory Commission may 

also employ and license a Primary Management Official or Key Employee, on a 

probationary basis, after the Regulatory Commission has submitted a notice of results 

to the Commission, but before receiving the Commission's statement of objections, 

provided that notice and the licensee's right to a hearing are provided to the licensee, or 

The Regulatory Commission shall notify the Commission within thirty (30) days after a 

license Is issued to a Primary Management Official or Key Employee. Additionally, the 

Regulatory Commission shall comply with the Tribal employment preference ordinance 

in effect. 

I. If the Regulatory Commission issues a Primary Management Official or 

Key Employee a gaming license, before receiving the Commission's statement of 

objections, notice and hearing shall be provided to the licensee pursuant to Section 

12(7)-{9) of this Gaming Ordinance. 

m. The Regulatory Commission shall not employ as a gaming employee, 

Primary Management Official or Key Employee and shall terminate any probationary 

employee, if: 

(1) An employee does not have a license after ninety (90) days. 

(2) The report on the appllcant's background investigation finds that 

the applicant: 

23 
(a) has been convicted of or has plead nolo contendere to any 

felony within the previous ten (10) years or has ever been 

convicted of or has ever plead nolo contendere to any gaming 

offense; 

{b) has knowingly and willfully provided materially important false 

statements or information on his employment application; or, 

( c) has been determined to be a person whose prior activities, 

criminal record, if any, or reputation, habits, and association 

pose a threat to the public interest or to the effective regulation 

and control of gaming, or create or enhance the dangers of 

unsuitable, unfair, or illegal practices, methods, and activities In 

the conduct of gaming or the carrying on of the business and 

financial arrangements incidental thereto. 

n. If the Regulatory Commission does not license a Primary Management 

Official or Key Employee applicant, the Regulatory Commission shall notify the 

Commission and shall forward copies of its eligibility detennination and notice of results to 

the Commission for inclusion In the Indian Gaming individuals Record System. 

o. The Regula1ory Commission shall retain for Inspection by the Commission 

Chair or his or her designee all applications for licensing, investigative reports and eligibilfty 

determination for Primary Management Official or Key Employee applicants for no less 

than three (3) years from the date of termination of employment. 

p. In the event of any dispute as to Subsection (d) above, the parties shall 

meet and in good faith attempt to resolve the differences. Until the matter is resolved the 

applicant shall not be employed as a gaming employee by the Pueblo. 

2. Background Investigation of Gaming Employee During Employment. 

a. The Pueblo shall retain the right to conduct such additional background 

investigations of any Primary Management Official, Key Employees, or other gaming 

employee at any time during the term of that person's employment. Any gaming employee 

found to fall within the provision of Section 13 (1)(a)-{d) above shall be immediately 

suspended and shall be dismissed, after notice to the employee and hearing pursuant to 

Section 12(7)-(9) of this Gaming Ordinance. 

3. Background Investigation of any Principal. 

a. The Puebro shall retain the right to conduct background investigations of 

any Principal of an entity which provides management services to the Pueblo or the 

Enterprise. 

24 
4. License Locations. 

a. Each place, facility, or location on TribaJ Lands where Class II gaming is 

conducted under this Gaming Ordinance shall be issued a separate llcense. 

Section 14. Management Contracts. 

The Pueblo may enter into a management contract for the Enterprise and 

management of Class II gaming activities. Each contract must comply with the 

provisions of this Gaming Ordinance, other applicable provisions of tribal law 

(including, but not limited to any tribal employment preference ordinance), and 

provisions of federal law (including, but not limited to, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2710, 2711). 

Ill. Class II Games Generally 

Section 15. Class II Games Permitted. 

1. The Pueblo may conduct Bingo, other games similar to Bingo, Cf ass II nonbanking card games or.a combination of Bingo and Class II non·banking card games. 

2. A Gaming Facility shall conduct regular Bingo games, special Bingo games and 

such other Class II games as are permitted by the Regulatory Commission pursuant to 

the requirements of applicable law. 

3. A schedule of the Class II games to be conducted must be conspicuously 

posted at each entrance to the Gaming Facility each week in which games will be 

conducted at least twentywfour (24) hours prior to the start of the first game scheduled. 

The schedule must include a statement of the fee to play and the prizes offered for each 

game. 

Section 16. Bingo Game Cards. 

The Regulatory Commission shall approve the game cards to be used for each Bingo 

game conducted. 

Section 17. Player Limitation. 

The number of persons permitted to play any Class II game shall be determined by the 

Regulatory Commission, except that: 

1. The number of people permitted in the Bingo Gaming Facility or in any room in 

the Facility shall not exceed the limitation of the number permissible under the applicable 

fire, building or other safety codes or standards. 

2. The number of people permitted to play any Bingo game shall not exceed the 

number of chairs available In the room(s) in which the game is being played. 

25 

I. 

i 

i 

j 

I 

i 

I 

I I 

i 

! 
Section 18, Entry Prohibited. 

No person may enter any room in which a Bingo game is being played unless the 

person is a player, except Gaming Facility employees and persons present by authority 

of the Regulatory Commission, for purposes of inspection or regulatory duties. 

Section 19. Hours of Operation; Approval by Regulatory Commission. 

Class U gaming may be conducted twenty.four (24) hours a day, seven days a week, 

subject to approval by the Regulatory Commission. 

Section 20. Patron Disputes 

The Regulatory Commission shall promulgate regulations and procedures 

governing patron disputes over the play or operation of any Class II game, including any 

refusal to pay to a patron any alleged winnings, currency or other thing of value. 

IV. Records and Audits 

Section 21. Records Maintenance. 

1. Each Gaming Faclllty administered by the Regulatory Commission shall maintain 

accurate and up to date records for each gaming activity conducted. Records shall 

include: 

a. all financial transactions; 

b. all gaming machine testing, malfunctions, maintenance and repairs; 

c. personnel; 

d. complaints of patrons; 

e. facility in house investigations of any kind; 

f. incidents and accidents; 

g. actions by the Regulatory Commission against players or Gaming Facility 

visitors; and, 

h. actions by Regulatory Commission against or in reprimand of employees. 

Section 22. Independent Audits. 

1. Gaming Activities Conducted by the Pueblo. 

26 
The Regulatory Commission shall require. and the Tribal Council shall cause, an 

audit to be conducted each year of all Class II Gaming Operations conducted on Tribal 

Lands. Such audit(s) shall be conducted by an Independent auditing firm, selected at 

the sole discretion of the Tribal Council, or by the Regulatory Commission on its behalf. 

However, nothing in this Subparagraph shall prohibit the annual audit of trlbal gaming 

actiVltles from being encompassed within the Pueblo's existing audit system. 

2. Contracts for Supplies. Services or Concessions. 

Each contract for supplies, services, or concessions with a contract amount in 

excess of $25,000 annually, except contracts for professional legal or accounting 

services, shall be subject to the independent audit required by Subparagraph (1), 

above. 

3. Annual Audit Report to be Provided to Commission. 

The Regulatory Commission shall furnish a copy of each annual gaming audit 

report to the Commission. 

V. Violations 

Section 23. Crimes and Civil Penalties. 

1. ft shall be unlawful for any person to: 

a. Operate or participate in gaming on Tribal Lands in violation of the 

provisions of this Gaming Ordinance, any rules and/or regulations promulgated by 

the Regulatory Commission pursuant to the authority of 1his Gaming Ordinance; 

b. Knowingly make a false statement in an application for employment 

with a Pueblo Gaming Enterprise on Pueblo Tribal Lands; 

c. Bribe or attempt to bribe, or unduly influence or attempt to unduly 

influence, any person who operates, conducts, assists, or is otherwise employed by 

the Pueblo Gaming Enterprise. 

d. Alter or misrepresent the outcome or other event on which wagers have 

been made after the outcome is made sure but before it is revealed to the players. 

e. Place, increase or decrease a bet or to determine the course of play 

after acquiring knowledge, not available to all players of the outcome of the game or 

any event that affects the outcome of the game or which is the subject of the bet or to 

aid anyone in acquiring such knowledge for the purpose of placing, increasing, or 

decreasing a bet or determining the course of play contingent upon that event or 

outcome. 

27 

i 

I 

1. 

I 
f. Claim, collect or take or attempt to claim, collect, or take, money or 

anything of value in or from a gambling game, with the intent to defraud without 

having made a wager thereon or claim, collect, or take an amount greater than the 

amount won. 

g. Civil fines provided for in this Section may be imposed in addition to 

criminal penalties. 

2. Any person or licensee who violates any provisions of this Gaming Ordinance 

or any rule or regulation promulgated by the Regulatory Commission, shall be 

punished by fine in the nature of a civil penalty, not to exceed an amount applicable 

under federal or tribal law for each violation or for each day the violation continues or 

by suspension of their license for a period not to exceed one year or by revocation of 

their license, or by both such fine and license suspension or revocation. 

3. Such fine may be assessed only after the person or entity has been given 

notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Tribal Court. 

4. Any person who violates any provision of this Gaming Ordinance or any rule or 

regulation promulgated by the Regulatory Commission, shall also be guilty of a 

criminal offense punishable by imprisonment not to exceed not to exceed an amount 

of time applicable under federal or tribal law. 

5. Any person who violates any provision of this Gaming Ordinance or any rule or 

regulation promulgated by the Regulatory Commission may have their property, 

equipment, material and supplies used in conducting the unlawful activity seized and 

impounded by the Regulatory Commission or their agents. The owner of the property 

shall be afforded an opportunity to object and be heard in accordance with the 

principles of due process. If no objection is raised, or the objection Is not sustained, 

the Pueblo may dispose of the seized property. 

6. The Tribal Court shall have jurisdiction over all violations of the Gaming 

Ordinance. Nothing, however, in this Gaming Ordinance shall be construed to 

authorize or require a criminal trial and punishment by the Pueblo of non-Indians 

except to the extent allowed or required by any applicable present or future, federal 

law, act of Congress or any applicable federal court decision. 

7. The Pueblo shall retain the right to revoke any license of any contractor who 

engages in conduct not authorized by this Gaming Ordinance or the contractor's 

agreement with the Pueblo which Involves moral turpitude, dishonesty or any act 

which is punishable as a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude under 

State or Federal laws. 

8. Any non-member of the Pueblo, Including non-Indian, who violates a provision 

of this Ordinance may be excluded from the Tribal Lands within the jurisdiction of the 

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo. 

28 
Section 24. Enforcement. 

After any person or entity faffs or refuses to pay a final assessment levied pursuant to 

Section 23 above, the Pueblo may proceed to collect the assessment by initiating a 

civil action against the person or entity in Tribal Court or in any other court of 

competent jurisdiction. In such civil action, validity and amount of the assessment 

shall not be subject to judicial review. The Pueblo shall be entitled to all remedies in 

law or in equity that are available to civil litigants generally and/or specially, by law. 

VI. Validity of Ordfnance 

Section 25. Severability. 

If any provision or provisions in this Gaming Ordinance are held invalid by a court of 

competent jurisdiction, this Gaming Ordinance shall continue in effect as if the invalid 

provision(s) were not a part hereof. 

Section 26. Amendments. 

The Gaming Ordinance may be amended by action of the Tribal Council and 

documented by Tribal Council Resolution. 

Section 27. Effective Date of Ordinance. 

This Gaming Ordinance, as amended, shall take effect upon adoption of the Tribal 

Council and after it has been approved by the Chairman of the Commission. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the foregoing amendment to Ordinance 

No. 00492 is hereby enacted by the Tribal Council of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo on the 

18

1

' day of March,2014. // k 

By: ~-Authorized Officer 

Title: Lt·~()VY/)fL~ 

ATT{l1 . .A. 

By: Ali !fic~Vh Oridieef 

Title: -rt /Id mtissi' 

29 

I. 
Class II Gaming Regulations 

Bingo 

Section 1. Bingo Cards 

1. Bingo Card Inventory. 

a. Bingo cards shall be inventoried to ensure that the bingo card inventory 

can be accounted for at all times and to ensure the integrity of the cards being used. 

b. Bingo cards shall be maintained in a secured location, with surveillance 

coverage adequate to identify persons accessing the secured storage area. 

c. When bingo cards are received from the supplier, the cards shall be 

inspected (without breaking the factory seals, if any) counted, inventoried, and secured. 

2. Bingo Card Inventory Records 

a. Bingo Card Inventory Records shall be recorded to include the following 

information: 

are: 

i. Date received 

ii. Shift or session 

iii. Time 

iv. Location 

v. Quantities received, issued, removed and, if applicable, returned 

vi. Marked, altered, or otherwise manipulated cards 

vii. Name and signature of the authorized gaming employee 

conducting the inventory 

viii. Any variance 

ix. Beginning and ending inventory, and 

x. Description of inventory transaction being performed 

b. Records shall be signed by the issuer and recipient whenever bingo cards 

i. Removed from storage to the bingo facility and returned to storage 

from the bingo facllity. 

ii. Removed from storage and issued to the cage or sellers and 

returned from the cage or seller to storage. 

3. Cancelled Bingo Cards 

EXHIBIT 

B 
a. Bingo Cards removed from inventory that are deemed out of sequence, 

flawed, or misprinted and not returned to the supplier shall be cancelled to ensure they 

are not used in any bingo game. Such cards shall be logged as removed from inventory. 

4. Bingo cards associated with an investigation shall be retained separately from 

the cancell-ed and removed bingo cards. 

5. Bingo Card Safes 

a. Manual bingo cards sold shall be recorded. The following information shall 

be documented: 

i. Date 

ii. Shift or session 

iii. Number of bingo cards issued, sold, and returned 

iv. Dollar amount of bingo card sales; 

v. Name and signature of the gaming employee preparing the record, 

vi. Name and signature of a gaming employee who verified the bingo 

cards returned to inventory and dollar amount of bingo card sale. 

b. Bingo card voids will be processed in accordance with the rules of the 

game and must include: 

i. Patron refunds; 

ii. Adjustments to bingo card sales and inventory to reflect voids; 

iii. Reason for the void ; 

iv. Authorization for all voids. 

Section 2. Bingo Equipment and Draw 

1. Access to controlled bingo equipment (e.g. blower, balls in play and back-up 

balls) shall be restricted to authorized gaming employees. 

2. All new bingo equipment, including new bingo balls, as well as those in use, shall 

be inspected by two employees before the start of the first Bingo Occasion. At least one 

of the verifying gaming employees shall be a supervisory gaming employee or 

independent of the bingo games department. 

3. Where the selection is made through an electronic aid, certification in accordance 

with 25 CFR 547.14 is acceptable for verifying the randomness of the draw and satisfies 

the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 
4. The Pueblo Gaming Operation, with the Regulatory Commission approval, shall 

establish procedures to ensure the correct calling of numbers selected in the bingo 

game. 

5. Each ball drawn shall be shown to a camera immediately before it is called so 

that it is individually displayed to all patrons. 

6. At the end of each Bingo game, an authorized gaming employee shall place all 

numbered balls back into the selection device prior to calling the next game. 

7. For all games offering a prize payout of $1 ,200 or more, as the objects are 

drawn, the identity of the objects shall be immediately recorded and maintained for a 

minimum of 24 hours. 

Section 3. Verification and Payout Procedures 

1. An employee who sells bingo cards: 

a. Shall not be the sole verifier of bingo cards for prize payouts; 

b. Is permitted to announce the serial numbers of winning paper. 

2. When a Bingo is called, at least two employees shall verify the authenticity of 

each card, objects drawn and previously designated arrangement were valid for the 

game in play. 

a. A computerized card verifying system may be used to verify the payout 

3. Payout 

a . A payout form shall be issued to every winner. The payout form shall be 

verified by at !east two gaming employees, signed by a bingo floor employee and the 

main bank cashier. 

b. Manual prize payouts over $1,000 must require one of the two signatures 

and verification to be a supervisory or management employee. 

c. Total payouts shall be computed and recorded by shift or bingo occasion. 

4. Payout Records 
a. Payout records, including manual payout records, shall include the 

following jnformation: 

i. Date and time 

ii. Amount of the payout 

iii. Bingo card serial number, or player interface identifier 

iv. Game name or number 

v. Description of pattern covered (cover-all, four corners, etc.) 

vi. Signature of all, and at least two, employees involved in the 

transaction. 

5. Cash and Cash Equivalent 

a. All funds used to operate the bingo department shall be counted by at 

least gaming employees independently and reconciled to the recorded amounts at the 

end of each shift or bingo occasion. 

b. Unverified transfers of cash of cash equivalents are prohibited. 

c. Procedures must be implemented to control cash or cash equivalents 

based on the amount of the transaction. These procedures must include documentation 

by shift or bingo session of the following: 

i. Inventory, including any increases or decreases; 

ii. Transfers; 

iii. Exchanges, including acknowledging signatures or initials; and 

iv. Resulting variances. 

d. Any change to control of accountability, exchange, or transfer requires that 

the cash or cash equivalents be counted and recorded independently by at least two 

agents and reconciled to the recorded amount. 

6. Display of Rules 

a. All game rules and disclaimers shall be made readily available to the 

player upon request. 

Section 4. Electronic Bingo Equipment 
The Regulatory Commission shall establish controls and procedures, in accordance 

with 25 CFR Part 543 and 25 CFR Part 54 7 for the use of technological aids and 

electronic bingo games. 

1. Controls and Procedures 

a. The controls and procedures established and implemented shall ensure 

the following: 

i. Shipping and receiving of all software and hardware components 

are received and verified by an authorized employee. 

ii. Access to gaming system components is limited to authorized 

employees. 

iii. Records related to installed game servers and player interfaces 

shall maintain the following records: 

1. Date installed 

2. Date made available for play 

3. Supplier 

4. Software version 

5. Serial number 

6. Game title 

7. Location number 

8. Seal number 

9. Initial meter reading 

b. Procedures must be implemented to investigate, document and resolve 

malfunctions. 

2. Software Verification and Testing 

a. System software verifications shall be verified in accordance with the 

regulations established by the Regulatory Commission and in accordance with 25 CFR 

547. 

b. Any software verification shall be verified by an authorized employee 

independent of the bingo operation. 

c. All testing shall be completed during the installation proceeding to verify 

that the player interface has been properly installed. 
Class II Card Games 

Section 1. Non-Banking Class II Card Game 

1. Playing Cards 

a. New and used playing cards shall be maintained in a locked and secured 

location, with appropriate surveillance coverage, and accessible only to authorized 

gaming employees. 

b. Used playing cards that are not to be re-used shall be properly cancelled 

and removed from service to prevent re-use, pursuant to approval by the Regulatory 

Commission. 

c. Playing cards associated with an investigation shall be retained intact, 

sealed in a container, identified by table, time and date, and signed by a supervisory 

gaming employee and forwarded to the Regulatory Commission. 

2. Inventory of Card Room 

a. Two or more gaming employees-one of whom shall be a supervisory 

gaming employee-shall independently count the table inventory at the opening and 

closing of the table and record the following information: 

i. Date; 

ii. Shift; 

iii. Table number; 

iv. Amount by denomination; 

v. Amount in total; and 

vi. Signatures of each gaming employee. 

3. Card Game Rules 

a. The rures shaU be posted or made available for patron review at the 

gaming facility, including rules governing contests, prize payouts, fees, the rake 

collected, and the placing of antes. 

Section 2. Card Game Promotions 

1. Promotional Progressive Pot and Pools 

a. All funds contributed by players into progressive pots and pools shall be 

returned when won in accordance with posted rules with no commission or 

administrative fee withheld. 
b. Rules governing promotional pools shall be conspicuously posted and 

shall designate: 

i. The conditions for participating in promotional progressive pots 

and/or pools card game; 

ii. The amount of funds to be contributed from each pot; 

iii. What type of hand it takes to win the pool; 

iv. How the promotional funds will be paid out; . 

v. How/when the contributed funds are added to the pools; and 

v1 . Amount/percentage of funds allocated to primary and secondary 

pools, if applicable. 

c. Promotional pool contributions shall not be placed in or near the rake 

circle, in the drop box, or commingled with gaming revenue from card games or any 

other game. 

d. The amount of the prize shall be conspicuously displayed. 

e. Individual payouts for card game promotional progressive pots and/or 

pools that are $600 or more must be documented at the time of the payout to include 

the following: 

L Patron's name; 

ii. Date of payout; 

iii. Dollar amount of payout and/or nature and dollar value of any noncash payout; 

iv. The signature of the agent completing the transaction; 

v. Name of the contest/tournament. 

f. At least once a day, the posted pool amount shall be updated to reflect the 

current pool amount. 

g. At least once a day, gaming employees independent of the card room 

shall reconcile the increases to the posted pool amount to the cash previously counted 

or received by the cage. 

h. AH decreases to the pool shall be properly documented, including a 

reason for the decrease. 

i. Promotional funds removed from the card game shall be placed in a 

locked container. 
i. Gaming employees authorized to transport the locked container 

shall not have access to the contents keys. 

ii. The contents key shall be maintained by a key employee 

independent of the card room. 

iii. At least once a day, the locked container shall be removed by at 

least two gaming employees, one of whom is independent of the 

card games department, and transported directly to the cage, vault 

or other secure room to be counted, recorded, and verified, prior to 

accepting the funds into cage accountability. 

Section 3. Variances 

1. The Gaming Enterprise shall establish, as approved by the Regulatory 

Commission, the threshold level at which a variance must be reviewed and must 

document the review. 
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 

Section 1. Patron Dispute Procedures 

All disputes with patrons including customers, players and any visitor to the Gaming 

Facility shall be handled according to these internal control procedures. 

1. Any dispute, disagreement, or other patron grievance that involves the payment 

of any winnings, currency or other thing of value and is between the patron and 

the gaming employees or staff, shall be resolved by two or more persons and the 

gaming enterprise shall notify the Commissioner Chairperson or a Gaming 

Investigator in writing within twenty-four (24) hours of a dispute. 

2. The gaming employee shall document the dispute and notify their immediate 

supervisor of the dispute regardless if the dispute was resolved or not. A copy of 

the dispute, whether resolved or not, shall also be given to the Gaming Facility 

General Manager. 

3. The gaming employee handling the dispute or the employee authorized to make 

a decision regarding any dispute shall advise the patron of the right to take the 

dispute to a higher ranking gaming employee. 

4. If the gaming employee and the supervisor cannot resolve the dispute, a report 

shall be made detailing the patron's name, address, the date, the nature of the 

dispute or the disposition of the dispute and shall provide copies to the 

Commissioner Chairperson or the Gaming Investigator. The Commissioner 

Chairperson or the Gaming Investigator, with the assistance of the Regulatory 

Commission staff, shall conduct whatever investigation is necessary and 

determine how to resolve the dispute. 

5. The Commissioner Chairperson shall notify the Gaming Enterprise and the 

patron in writing of the Commissioner Chairperson's decision regarding the 

dispute within fifteen (15) days after the date the Executive Director or Gaming 

Investigator was notified of the dispute. 

6. Any patron aggrieved by the decision of the CommiS$ioner Chairperson may file 

a petition for a hearing before the Regulatory Commission within thirty (30) days 

after the date of the Commissioner Chairperson's decision. If timely filed, the 

patron's grievance shall be subject to the hearing procedures promulgated by the 

Regulatory Commission. 

EXHIBIT 
7. All records of the dispute shall be kept on file for a minimum of two years at the 

gaming facility and shall be open for inspection by an authorized employee or by 

the Regulatory Commission. 
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 

Trj_bal .Attorney --------_ __ ·---- _________ ---·-- _ ______ .. 119 S. Old Pueblo Rd. Yslcta del Sur Pueblo, Texas 79907 Ph. (915) 859-7913 Fax (915) 859-2988 

June 2, 2014 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

1441 L Street NW, Suite 9100 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Attn: Jonodev Osceola Chaudhuri, Chairman 

Dear Chairman Chaudhuri: 

As general legal counsel for the Y sleta del Sur Pueblo, I am writing to confirm that the 

Tribal Council of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo is the authorized traditional governing body 

of the Pueblo, exercising all inherent governmental power, fiscal authority, and tribal 

sovereignty as recognized in Sections 101 and 104 of the Act of August 18, 1987. 

Pursuant to that authority, the Tribal Council is duly empowered to enact tribal law, 

including resolutions and ordinances. On March 18, 2014, the Y sleta de] Sur Pueblo 

Tribal Council formally adopted Tribal Resolution TC-021-14, Class II Tribal Gaming 

Ordinance. 

This letter further confirms our opinion that Tribal Resolution TC-021-14 was duly 

enacted pursuant to the authority of the Tribal Council of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo. 

Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or need additional 

information. 

Sincerely, --~ 

Ronald L. J ac n, General Counsel 

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 

Page 1of1