July 14, 1998 

Amalia Valencia 

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

Regulatory Agency 

10005 East Osborn Rd 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85256 

Fax No. (602) 850-8524 

Re: Advisory Opinion - Dream Card 

Dear Ms Valencia: 

This letter responds to your inquiry as to whether the National Lndian Garmn,o 

Commission regards Dream Card as a Class I1 same in Arizona under the Indian Garmng 

'id Regulatory Act (IGRA). For the reasons outlined below, I conclude that Dream Card is a Class II 

card game pursuant to IGRA 

Dream Card is a nonbanked card game if played as described m the enclosed documents. 

IGRA provides that Lndian tribes have jurisdiction over Class IT gaming, subject to oversight 

regulation by the NIGC. Pursuant to the IGRP, Class II gaming includes non-banking card 

games if such card games: 

(IJ are explicitly authorized by the laws of the State, or 

(IT) are not explicitly prohibited by the laws of the State, and are played at any location in 

the State, but only if such card games are played in conformity with those 

laws and regulations (if any) of the State regarding hours or periods of operation 

of such card _games or limitations on wagers or pot sizes in such card games. 

25 U.S.C. Cj 2703(7)(A)(ii). 

Therefore, the IGRA preempts the application of all State law operakg requirements save for 

those specified in the statute-pot size, hours, and wagers. The principle which applies to the 

issue is that enunciated by the court in United Ues v. Sisseton -W&QQJ&JUX Tn 'h, 897 F.2d 

3 58, (8th Cir. 1990): 

qylyyc " 

1Ul L SFE3. NW. STH WASHMW. D.C. ;mx# EL: 2crza-7W Fa ZE+Z!-irn 

- -- - - - -- . . . - 
We beIieve that the legislative history [of IGRA reveals that Congress 

intended to permit a particular gaming activity, even if conducted in a 

11-fl manner inconsistent with state law, if the state merely regulated, as 

opposed to completely barred, that particular gaming activity 

54. At 265. Thus, the classification of Dream Card depends on whether the game is explicitly 

authorized or not explicitly prohibited by the laws of Arizona. 

Gambling in Arizona is governed by the statutes at Chapter 33, Title 13, Arizona Revised 

Statutes, $3 13-330 1 through 13-33 12. Anzona permits gambling under several circumstances, 

such as social, regulated, and charitable gambling. A.R.S. 3 13-3302. Section 13-3304 prohibits 

"benefitting firom gambling," but excepts from its provisions "amusement or regulated gambling," 

and provides that "benefitting from social gambling as a player is not unlawfbl under this section." 

Section 13-3303 makes it a crime to promote gambling, but excepts from its provisions activities 

associated with "amusement, regulated, or social gambling." Card games are not mentioned in 

the Arizona statutes. In fact, the statutes do not identify any particular forms of gambling; instead 

they are aimed at regulating the circumstances under which gambling may legally occur in 

Arizona. Dream Card is, therefore, permitted in Arizona. 

The next step in the analysis is to determine whether Dream Card is "played at any 

location in the State," pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 5 2703(7) (A)($. Because Dream Card is "not 

explicitiy prohibited by the laws of the Stare, " Dream Card is a class II game Zit is played at any 

location in the state, subject to limits on hours or periods of operation and wagers or pot sizes. 

711 dream Card is played at the Reflection Bingo Hall in Glendale, Arizona, a nonIndian bingo facility. Such play is suficient to meet the requirement that the Zame is played at any location in 

the State. 

The only remaining consideration is whether Dream Card is being "played in conformity 

with the laws and regulations (if any) of the State regarding hours or periods of operation of such 

card games or limitations on wazers or pot sizes in such card games." 25 U.S.C. 

5 2703(7)(A)(ii). As indicated above, card games are not specifically mentioned in Arizona's 

gambling statutes. We are aware, therefore, of no laws or regulations establishing the limitations 

referred to in the IGM 

As pointed out by the court in the $isseton decision, the legslative history of IGRA 

suppons this view, and reveals a Congressional intent to authorize only specific Limited state law 

restrictions on Class I1 card games. The Senate Repon accompanying 'he bill ultimately enacted 

as the IGRA, S. 555, discusses the section which requires non-bdng card games to conform 

with state regulations on periods of operation and wagers or pot sizes: 

Subparagraphs O and (11) [of 25 U.S.C. 2703(7)(A)(ii)] are 

to be read in conjunction with [25 U.S.C. 3 27101 sections (a)(?) 

[which provides that class I1 gaming shall be within the 
jurisdiction of the Indian tribes] and (b)(l)(A) [which 

provides that an Indian tribe may engage in class 11 gaming 

I ,# Zit is located with a State that pexmits such gaming for 

any purpose] to determine which particular card games 

are within the scope of class 11. No additional restrictions 

are intended bv these subparagauhs, The Committee 

notes that, whlle existing law does not require that 

Indian card games conform with State law, it agreed 

to adoption of biil language to provide that these card 

games be operated in conformity with laws of statewide 

application with respect to hours or periods of operation, or 

limitations on wagers or pot sizes for such card games. 

S.Rep. No. 446, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. at 9 (1988), reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N. 3071, 3079 

-. Furthermore, the Senate Report states that: 

Class II continues to be within tribal jurisdiction but will be 

subject to oversight reglation by the National Indian Garmng 

Commission; card games must be played under state-mandated 

hour and pot limits, if any. 

S.Rep., supra at 7. Thus, Congress intended that non-banking card games did not have to 

,onform with state law requirements other than those expressly stated. As long as the card 

ees are explicitly authorized or not explicitly prohibited by the laws of the state, tribes may 

operate them, subject ro the iirnits on hours and periods of operation, and wagers and pot sizes. 

Therefore, because Dream Card is a class II game in Arizona, I conclude that tribes may 

operate Dream Card subject to tribal and MGC regulation and any state regulation concerning 

hours or periods of operation and pot and wager sizes. 

Please be advised that this legal opinion is advisory in nature only and that it may be 

superseded, reversed, revised or reconsidered by the MGC. Furthermore, if there are any 

changes made to the game as described, such changes might materially alter our conclusion. 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Penny olem man 

Deputy General Counsel 
-.. cc: Chainnan William Antone, Ak-Chi. Indian Community 

--- - Chairman Gilbert Jones, Sr., Fort McDowell Mohave-Apache Indian Community 

S*I I - Chairman Benito Valencia, PascuaYaqui Tribe 

Chairman Edward Manuel, Tohono O'odham Nation 

Chairman David Kwail, Camp Verde Yavapai-Apache 

Chairwoman Vivian Burdette, Tonto Apache Tribe 

President Stan Rice, Jr., Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe 

Chairman Raymond Stanley, San Carlos Apache Tribe 

Chairman Ronnie Lupe, White Mountain Apache Tribe 

Governor Mary V. Thomas, Gila River Indian Community 

President Ivan Maiul, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

Gary Husk, Director, Arizona Department of Gaming 

Arizona Governor Jane D. Hull 

Eric Dahlstrom, Esq., Rothstein, Donateili, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Cron and Schoenberg 

Heidi McNeil, Esq., Sell& Wdmer 

Janet A Napoiitano, United States Attorney 

John Kelly, United States Attorney 

Kevin DiGregory, Depanment of Justice 

Jim Simon, Department of Justice