IN RE CLASS I1 GAMING ORDINANCE OF THE 

COMANCHE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

INTRODUCTION 

This is an appeal by the Comanche Tribe of Oklahoma (Comanche Tribe or Appellant) 

from the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission's (NIGC or 

Commission) February 5, 2001, disapproval of an amendment to the Comanche Tribal 

Gaming Ordinance, enacted by Tribal Resolution 102-00 (Ordinance Amendment). For 

the reasons set forth below, the Chairman's decision to disapprove the Ordinance 

Amendment is affirmed. 

BACKGROUND 'QW 

On April 1, 1996, the Chairman of the NIGC approved Resolution No. 32-96, 

Comanche Nation Gaming Ordinance. Section 4(b) of that ordinance provides that 

"the Nation shall be authorized to conduct all forms of Class I1 gaming within the 

Nation's jurisdiction . . . ." 

On December 18, 2000, the NIGC received Comanche Tribe Resolution No. 102-00, 

dated December 2, 2000, which amended Section 2(j) of the Comanche Tribe of 

Oklahoma's Tribal Gaming Ordinance. That amendment provides in its entirety: 

Existing Section 2(j) to be replaced with the following: Section 20) 

"Jurisdiction" means those areas over which the Comanche Nation has 

jurisdiction, including but not limited to, (1) all Comanche Nation lands, 

(2) dependent Indian communities of the Comanche, and (3) all lands 

originally allotted to the Comanche Nation or its members that are held in 

trust by the United States, regardless of the tribal affiliation of the owner 

(whether an individual or tribe), unless the Comanche Nation has 

expressly authorized in writing the relinquishment of such land from its 

jurisdiction. The term "jurisdiction", as used herein, does not include 

jointly-held lands of the Kiowa, Comanche and Apache Indian Nations. 
The Appellant also submitted Ordinance 103-00 to amend Section 15(a) of the 

Comanche Tribe of Oklahoma's Tribal Gaming Ordinance by providing in its entirety: 

Existing Section 15 to be amended to add at the end of subsection (a) "of 

the Comanche Nation Games." Thereafter Section 15(a) should read as 

follows: It shall be a violation of this Ordinance for any person to: (a) 

Conduct or participate in any Class I1 or Class I11 gaming operation within 

Comanche Nation jurisdiction other than at the gaming facilities of the 

Comanche Nation Games. 

The Chairman approved Ordinance Resolution 103-00 on February 5,2001. 

The Chairman disapproved Ordinance Resolution 102-00 on February 5, 2001, because 

subsection 26)(3) purported to give jurisdiction to the Comanche Tribe to regulate 

gaming on land having status comparable to that of an acquisition of the Fort Sill Apache 

Tribe. (Ordinance Disapproval Letter, February 5,2001). The Comanche Tribe appealed 

the disapproval to the Commission on March 7,2001. 

DISCUSSION 

Tribal ordinances or resolutions concerning the conduct or regulation of class I1 gaming 

are reviewed by the Chairman in accordance with 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(2). Amendments 

to a tribe's gaming ordinance are submitted for approval by the Chairman in accordance 

with 25 C.F.R. 5 522.3. A tribe may appeal a determination by the NIGC Chairman 

disapproving a gaming ordinance, resolution, or amendment within 30 days after the 

Chairman serves notice of his determination of disapproval. See 25 C.F.R. Part 524. The 

appeal by the Comanche Tribe in this matter was filed in a timely manner. 

From the Appellant's perspective, the heart of the matter concerns the Appellant's ability 

to exercise governmental power over all lands originally allotted to the Tribe or its 

members. The Appellant argues in its appeal that the BIA7s decision to acquire the 

Kiowa member land in trust for the Fort Sill Apache Tribe was in error and that the 

Appellant retains jurisdiction over this land. The Appellant further argues that the 

Commission should find that the Secretary of the Interior's decision to take land into trust 

for the benefit of the Fort Sill Apache Tribe was erroneous. Appeal of the Comanche 

Tribe of Oklahoma, at page 24. 

In addressing tribal gaming ordinances and amendments to such ordinances, the NIGC 

endeavors to interpret and apply the terms of IGRA and its implementing regulations. By 

interpreting and applying the "Indian lands" definition, the Commission may determine 

whether gaming may be conducted or regulated by a tribe on specific parcels of land. 

(See Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri, et. al. v. Norton, et. al., 240 F.3d 1250, 1265 (loth 

Cir. 2001). 
This appeal is properly resolved by focusing on whether or not the Appellant's 

amendment to its tribal gaming ordinance is consistent with IGRA. The Act expressly 

limits gaming to Indian lands over which the Tribe has jurisdiction (emphasis added).' 

See 25 U.S.C. 5 2710(b)(l) ("An Indian tribe may engage in, or license and regulate, 

class I1 gaming on Indian lands within such tribe's jurisdiction. . . "); 25 U.S.C.5 2710(2) 

("The Chairman shall approve any tribal ordinance or resolution concerning the conduct, 

or regulation of class I1 gaming on the Indian lands within the tribe's jurisdiction. ..."); 

and 25 U.S.C. §2713(d) ("Nothing in this chapter precludes an Indian tribe from 

exercising regulatory authority provided under tribal law over a gaming establishment 

within the Indian tribe's jurisdiction if such regulation is not inconsistent with this chapter 

or with any rules or regulations adopted by the Commission"). 

Having reviewed the record before the Chairman, as well as the Chairman's decision, the 

Commission declines to reverse the Chairman's disapproval of the ordinance amendment. 

The primary basis for our decision lies within the third clause of the ordinance's 

definition of the term L'jurisdiction.'' This clause, which is set forth above, appears to be 

intended as an assertion of tribal governmental authority over land now designated as 

being within the jurisdiction of, and held in trust for, another tribe. While it is not 

necessarily inconceivable that two tribes could lawfully possess jurisdiction over the 

same lands, it appears that sharing jurisdiction is not the intention of the Appellant's 

ordinance. Indeed, Section 15(a) of the Appellant's ordinance provides exclusive 

jurisdiction to the Appellant and therefore unlafilly attempts to oust any other tribe of 

jurisdiction over "lands originally allotted to the Comanche Nation or its members that 

are held in trust by the United States, regardless of the tribal affiliation of the owner 

(whether an individual or tribe)." 

The assertions within the Appellant's amended ordinance are inconsistent with IGRA 

because they could be construed to deny another tribe jurisdiction over its own trust lands 

for gaming purposes. Although the Appellant is entitled to disagree with the Secretary's 

decision to take land into trust for another tribe, the Commission is reluctant, in this 

context, to ratify Appellant's broad assertions of jurisdiction and risk undermining the 

Secretary's decision to take land into trust for another tribe. 

Indeed, whatever the merits of the Appellant's position on the Secretary's actions in 

taking land into trust, the NIGC declines the invitation to re-evaluate a decision of the 

Secretary as to matter that is clearly within the Secretary's authority. The Commission 

believes it prudent to allow the Secretary's decision to stand or fall on its own merits 

through direct review of such actions. Under the circumstances presented here, the 

Commission will not make itself a forum for a collateral attack on the Secretary's 

1 The IGRA defines "Indian lands" as: 

(A) all lands within the limits of any Indian reservation; and 

(B) 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). 
decision. Such an approach would merely inject further confusion into an already 

complex issue. 

By amending its gaming ordinance to include a controversial assertion of jurisdiction, the 

Appellant seeks to obtain a ruling that the NIGC simply need not reach. The Appellant 

has unnecessarily sought to entangle the gaming ordinance amendment review process 

with matters clearly not necessary to determine the adequacy of the tribal gaming 

regulation. 

DECISION 

The Amendment to Section 26) of the Comanche Nation Gaming Ordinance, as adopted 

by Comanche Tribe Resolution 102-00, contains language inconsistent with the definition 

of "Indian lands" and with other provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in that 

the Amendment purports to allow the Appellant to conduct and regulate gaming on lands 

over which it would not have jurisdiction and over which it would not exercise 

governmental control. 

We affirm the Chairman's disapproval of the Ordinance Amendment. 

Dated: June 18,2001 

~lizabethg. ~Grner 

Vice-Chairman 

WL 

Idontie R. Deer 

Chairman 

- - 

Teresa E. Poust 

Commissioner