Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf
Page Number: 33

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

9 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

game.  Congress did not do so. 

2 
Further textual evidence points decisively in the same di-
rection.  Section 107(a) says that it was “enacted in accord-
ance with the tribe’s request in Tribal Resolution No. T.C.– 
02–86.”  101  Stat.  668–669  (emphasis  added).    As  noted 
above,  the  Tribal  Resolution  contains  just  a  single  “re-
quest[ ]”: that Congress enact “language which would pro-
vide that all gaming, gambling, lottery, or bingo, as defined 
by the laws and administrative regulations of the State of 
Texas, shall be prohibited on the Tribe’s reservation or on
tribal land.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. 123.  This language is 
categorical.  So the breadth of the Tribe’s request, and Con-
gress’s  clear  statement  that  it  enacted  §107(a)  in  accord-
ance with that request, strongly indicate that Congress in-
tended  to  ban  “all”  gaming  activities—“as  defined  by”
Texas—that are inconsistent with Texas law.2 

The Court does not view the Tribal Resolution as signifi-
cant because Congress did not “purport to incorporate [it]
into federal law.”  Ante, at 16.  But this is not mere legisla-
tive  history;  it  is  statutory  text.  Congress  told  us  exactly 
why  it  did  what  it  did:  It  was  acting  in  accord  with  the  
Tribe’s request that it ban on the reservation all gaming as
defined by Texas.

The  Court  says  that  “Congress  did  legislate  ‘in  accord-
ance  with’  the  Tribe’s  resolution”  because  it  “expressly
granted the Tribe federal recognition and chose not to apply 

—————— 

2 The Court argues that we omit “essential details” from our account of 
the tribal resolution—namely, the fact that California v. Cabazon Band 
of Mission Indians, 480 U. S. 202 (1987), was decided after the resolu-
tion’s enactment but before passage of the Restoration Act.  Ante, at 18. 
The  Court  says  it  is  “plausible”  this  led  to  a  better  deal  for  the  Tribe. 
Ibid.  But §107(a) does not mention Cabazon Band.  Instead, its express 
terms say the provision was “enacted in accordance with the tribe’s re-
quest” in the resolution.  101 Stat. 668–669.  The resolution is therefore 
the essential reference point.