Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf
Page Number: 40

16 

YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO v. TEXAS 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

The next section, §107(c), explains how: The State could 
enforce its laws by “bringing an action in the courts of the
United States to enjoin violations of the provisions of this 
section.”  101 Stat. 669. 

* 

* 

* 
The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Tribe needed federal trust sta-
tus to secure its future.  Texas objected that granting this
status might bring with it casino-style gaming.  Categori-
cally denying any interest in gaming, the Tribe requested
that  the  pending  bill  conferring  federal  trust  status  be 
amended to prohibit on the reservation all gambling as de-
fined  by  Texas  law.  The  Tribe  did  so  even  though  it
acknowledged  this  would  result  in  it  being  treated  differ-
ently from other tribes.  The proposal removed the State’s 
objection  and  Congress  passed  the  bill  granting  federal 
trust  status  to  the  Tribe,  while—in  §107(a)—specifically 
prohibiting on the reservation gaming activities barred un-
der Texas law.  At the same time, in §107(b), Congress pro-
tected the Tribe’s interests by banning direct state enforce-
ment  on  the  reservation.  Under  §107(c),  Texas  would 
instead have to proceed in federal court.  This was a careful 
balance struck by Congress. 

The Court today throws out that balance, treating gam-
ing on this reservation as if it were just like any other Pub-
lic Law 280 reservation.  I respectfully dissent.