Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO v. TEXAS 

Syllabus 

(1) Texas asks the Court to focus on subsection (a) of the Restora-
tion Act, which ends with the statement that “[t]he provisions of this
subsection are enacted in accordance with the tribe’s request in Tribal
Resolution No. T. C.–02–86.”  101 Stat. 668–669.  In that referenced 
resolution, the Tribe announced its opposition to Texas’s legislative ef-
forts to have its gaming laws apply on tribal lands.  At the same time, 
the Tribe also announced its own intention to prohibit gaming on its 
reservation  and  authorized  the  acceptance  of  federal  legislation  pro-
hibiting gaming on tribal lands.  Texas claims that the reference to the 
tribal resolution suggests the Restoration Act should be read “broadly”
to allow Texas to apply its gaming regulations on tribal lands.  As an 
initial matter, subsection (a) does not purport to incorporate that res-
olution into federal law—something Congress knows how to do when
it wishes, see e.g., 25 U. S. C. §5396(b).  In addition, Texas’s “broad” 
reading suffers from the same interpretative challenges already men-
tioned and defies Congress’s apparent adoption of Cabazon’s prohibi-
tory/regulatory distinction.  Finally, on this Court’s interpretation of 
the  Restoration  Act,  Congress  did  legislate  “in  accordance  with”  the 
Tribe’s resolution by expressly granting the Tribe federal recognition 
and choosing not to apply Texas gaming regulations as surrogate fed-
eral law on tribal land.  Pp. 15–18.

(2) Texas appeals to public policy and argues that attempts to dis-
tinguish  between  prohibition  and  regulation  are  sure  to  prove  “un-
workable.”  It is not, however, this Court’s place to question whether 
Congress adopted the wisest or most workable policy.  That the Resto-
ration  Act’s  prohibitory/regulatory  distinction  can  and  will  generate 
borderline cases hardly makes it unique among federal statutes.  And 
courts  have  applied  the  same  prohibitory/regulatory  framework  for 
decades under Public Law 280.  Moreover, Texas’s alternative inter-
pretation  poses  its  own  “workability”  challenges,  as  federal  courts 
would be charged with enforcing the minutiae of state gaming regula-
tions governing the conduct of permissible games.  Pp. 18–19. 

955 F. 3d 408, vacated and remanded. 

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BREYER, SO-
TOMAYOR, KAGAN, and BARRETT, JJ., joined.  ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dis-
senting opinion, in which THOMAS, ALITO, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined.