July 14, 1998 

Arnaiia Valencia 

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Lndian Community 

Regulatory Agency 

10005 East Osborn Rd 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85256 

Fax No. (602) 850-8524 

Re: Advisory Opinion - Asian Bingo 

Dear Ms Valencia: 

This letter responds to your inquiry as to whether the National Indian Gaming 

Commission regards Asian Bingo as a Class II card game in Anzona under the Indian Gaming 

'''hd Regulatory Act (IGRA). For the reasons outlined below, I conclude that Asian Bingo is, pursuant 

to IGRA, a Class 11 card game. 

Asian Bingo, despite its name, is a nonbanked card game as described on the enclosed 

documents. IGRA provides that Indian tribes have jurisdiction over Class II gaming, subject to 

oversight regulation by the NIX. Pursuant to the IGRq Class I1 garning includes non-banking 

card games if such card games: 

(I) are explicitly authorized by the laws of the State, or 

@) 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. fj 2703(7)(A)(ii). 

Therefore, the IGRA preempts the application of all State law operating 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 lJ&&&j&s v. Sisseton -W- Sioux Tn 'be, 897 F.2d 

TI. ,lr 

358, (8th Cir. 1990): 

1441 L SIRER, N.W. 9TH FLOOR WASHINOTON. D.C. 20005 IEL: 202a-7043 FAX: ma-m66 
We believe that the legislative history [of IGRA] reveals that Congress 

intended to permit a particular gaming activity, even if conducted in a 11-t manner inconsistent with state law, if the state merely regulated, as 

opposed to completely barred, that particular gaming activity. 

IrJ. At 365. Thus, the classdication of Asian Bingo 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, Anzona 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 from gambling," but excepts from its provisions "amusement or regulated gambling," 

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

Section 13-3303 makes it a crime to promote gambling, but excepts fiom 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 identiq any particular forms of gambling; instead 

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

Arizona. Asian Bingo is, therefore, permitted in Arizona. 

The next step in the analysis is to determine whether Asian Bingo is "played at any 

location in the State," pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2703(7) (A)@). Because Asian Bingo is "not 

explicitly prohibited by the laws of the State, " hian Bingo is a class I1 game if it is played at any 

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

411- We have determined that Asian Bingo is played in a nonIndian facility in Glendale, Arizona. Such 

play is sufficient to meet the requirement that the game is played at any location in the State. 

The only remaining consideration is whether Asian Bingo 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 wagers or pot sizes in such card games." 25 U.S.C. 

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

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

referred to in the IGRA. 

As pointed out by the court in the Sisseton decision, the legislative history of IGRA 

supports this view, and reveals a Congressional intent to authorize only specific limited state law 

restrictions on Class I1 card games. The Senate Report accompanying the bill ultimately enacted 

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

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

Subparagraphs (I) and (II) [of 25 U.S.C. 5 2703(7)(A)(ii)] are 

to be read in conjunction with (25 U.S.C. $ 27101 sections (a)(2) 

[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 I1 gaming 

h+" if it is located within a State that permits such gaming for 
any purpose] to determine which particular card games 

are within the scope of class I.. No additional restrictions . 

'I -t 

are intended bv these subparamaphs, The Committee 

notes that, while 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 

(Ern~m. Furthermore, the Senate Report states that: 

Class 11 continues to be within tribal jurisdiction but will be 

subject to oversight regulation by the National Indian Gaming 

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 

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

games are explicitly authorized or not explicitly prohibited by the lax; 3f the state, tribes may 

operate- them, subject to the limits on hours and periods of operation, and wagers and pot sizes. 

W Therefore, because Asian Bingo is a class II game in Arizona, I conclude that tribes may 

operate Asian Bingo subject to tnbd and &IGC 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 contact me at (202) 632-7003. 

Sincerely, fl 

Penny olem man 

Deputy General Counsel 

cc: Chairman William Antone, Ak-Chin Indian Community 

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

Chairman Benito Valencia, PascuaYaqui Tribe 

'W' Chairman Edward Manuel, Tohono O'odham Nation 
Chairman David Kwaii, Camp Verde Yavapai-Apache 

Chairwoman Vivian Burdette, Tonto Apache Tribe 

'*cri,' President Stan Rice, Jr., Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe 

Chairman Raymond Stanley, San Carlos Apache Tribe 

Chairman Ronnie Lupe, Whlte Mountain Apache Tribe 

Governor Mary V. Thomas, Gila River Indian Community 

President Ivan Makil, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

Gary Husk, Director, Arizona Department of Gaming 

Arizona Governor Jane D. Hull 

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

Heidi McNeil, Esq., Snell & Wiimer 

Janet A. Napolitano, United States Attorney 

John Kelly, United States Attorney 

Kevin DiGregory, Department of Justice 

Jim Simon, Department of Justice 

Enclosures 

w