Robert A. Rosette, Esq. 

Monteau, Peebles & Crowell 

555 Capitol Mall 

Suite 1440 

Sacramento, CA 958 14 

Re: Lac Vieux Desert Internet Bingo Operation 

Dear Mr. Rosette: 

Thank you for visiting our office on June 21,2000, and explaining the position of the Lac 

Vieux Desert Band of Superior Chippewa (LVD) on its proposed Internet Bingo 

operation. The LVD7s position, as articulated during that meeting, is that the internet is 

an aid to the play of class 11 bingo and, consequently, that LVD may legally offer Internet 

Bingo to patrons nationwide pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). 

During our meeting, we indicated that we were skeptical, but that we would consider 

"*YJV your theory. Having carefully considered the LVD proposal, we have determined that 

Internet Bingo is not authorized by IGRA. We reach this conclusion because the play of 

Internet Bingo does not necessarily occur on Indian lands. 

Pursuant to IGRA, a tribe may engage in, or license and regulate, class II and class III 

gaming on Indian lands within the tribe's jurisdiction if (1) the Indian gaming is located 

within a state that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or 

entity, (2) such garning is not otherwise specifically prohibited on Indian lands by federal 

law, and (3) the tribe adopts an ordinance or resolution which permits gaming that is then 

approved by the Chairman of the NIGC. For class III gaming, a tribe must, in addition, 

obtain a tribal-state compact that authorizes the games. See 25 U.S.C. $5 2710(a)(2) and 

(d)(l). 

Indian lands, as defined by IGRA, are 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 an Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction 

by the United States against alienation and over which an Indian tribe exercises 

governmental power. See 25 U.S.C. § 2703(4). 

Obviously, the concept in using the internet is to draw players from a wide area. Internet 

Bingo apparently seeks to draw any player who can log on to the internet site fiom any 

location and who is willing to pay the fee. The game itself does not depend on the player 

1441 L STREET, N.W. BM FLOOR WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 EL: 202-632-7003 FAX 202-632-7066 
Robert Rosette, Esq. 

October 26,2000 

being located in a tribal bingo facility or even on Indian lands. As explained in a recent 

l'lklr t case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, IGRA preempts state laws that 

purport to regulate Indian gaming. The scope of this preemption, however, is limited to 

the reach of IGRA. Thus, IGRA allows only gaming that occurs on Indian lands. AT&T 

v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 45 F.Supp.2d. 995 (D. ID. December 17,1998) (Memorandum 

Decision and Order), appeal docketed, No. 99-35088 (9" Cir. January 14, 1999). 

Because not all of its garning activity occurs on Indian lands, Internet Bingo lies outside 

IGRA's safe harbor for class I1 gaming or compacted class 111 gaming. Accordingly, the 

game operators may be subject to criminal prosecution for violation of state or federal 

law if 1) any of the states in which players are located prohibits conduct of an internet 

gambling business or 2) the underlying gaming activity is itself a violation of state law. 

As the court notes at page 6 in the Coeur D'Alene decision, "[blecause the Tribes' 

Lottery consists of gaming activities that occur out-of-state and outside the limits of any 

reservation, state law applies to regulate that conduct." Several states are active in the 

prohibition of Internet gaming activity. 

Based on our conclusion that the IGRA does not authorize Internet Bingo, we need not 

address whether Internet Bingo is a class I1 technological aid under the IGRA, as put 

forth in your proposal. We understand LVD's argument that the internet is being used in 

this instance only to extend the play of bingo. Assuming arguendo, that the internet 

could appropriately be characterized in this case as a technological aid to the play of 

bingo, the principle of extending play has limits. In essence, we are confident that 

*Ill1 ,,nxl Congress did not intend to allow the play of bingo to be extended outside Indian lands. 

In summary, a tribal gaming operation is not authorized to operate under IGRA if all or 

part of the gaming occurs at locations that do not fall within the definition of "Indian 

lands." Further, such action may violate other federal and state laws. 

If you have any question regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Staff 

Attorney Maria Getoff at (202) 632-7003. 

S+ly yours, 

hbum 

ene 

cc: Charles Gross, Assistant United States Attorney, Western District of Michigan 

Kevin DiGregory, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of 

Justice, Criminal Division