Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf
Page Number: 39

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

15 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

The Court’s construction of §107—as merely extending the
Public Law 280 framework to gaming on Pueblo lands, and 
then watering down that framework through §107(c)’s lim-
itation on remedies—is untenable. 

3 
The Tribe insists that a contrary interpretation of §107(a) 
would  render  §§107(b)  and  (c)  meaningless,  or  would  at 
least result in undue tension between those provisions and 
subsection (a).  See, e.g., Brief for Petitioners 30–31.  I dis-
agree.

The Tribe focuses primarily on §107(b).  That provision
states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed as a grant 
of  civil  or  criminal  regulatory  jurisdiction  to  the  State  of
Texas.”  101 Stat. 669.  The Tribe and Court contend that 
this reservation of authority shows that Congress intended
to adopt the Cabazon Band framework.  Ante, at 9–10.  But 
if §107(a) simply adopted Cabazon Band, why would there 
have  been  any  need  to  say  so  again  in  §107(b)?    Section 
107(b) only makes sense if §107(a) raised questions about 
how far Texas’s authority reached beyond the limits of Cab-
azon Band.  Section 107(b) simply but importantly clarifies 
that §107(a) adopts only Texas’s substantive gaming laws
and  associated  penalties.  What  §107(a)  cannot  be  con-
strued to do—according to §107(b)—is to authorize Texas to 
exercise  the  regulatory  authority  of  administrative  agen-
cies  or  other  enforcers  of  state  law  directly  against  the 
Tribe.  Thus, Texas correctly explains that its Lottery Com-
mission could not exercise “jurisdiction on the Tribe’s reser-
vation.”  Brief for Respondent 38.  Likewise, its “local dis-
trict  attorneys”  could  not  bring  “criminal  enforcement 
actions  against  the  Pueblo  in  state  court  for  violations  of 
what has been adopted as federal law.”  Id., at 38–39.  Yet 
as §107(a) demands, the substance of the State’s laws pro-
hibiting certain gaming activities would remain enforceable 
in full.