Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf
Page Number: 27

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

3 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

granted the Pueblo federal trust status.  The bill also would 
have  authorized  gaming  on  the  Tribe’s  land,  so  long  as  it 
occurred “pursuant to a tribal ordinance or law” that had 
been  “approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.”  H. R. 
1344, §107, 99th Cong., 1st Sess., 15.  The bill passed the
House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate due to
opposition  from  Texas  state  officials  and  members  of  the 
Texas congressional delegation.  They were concerned that
the bill “did not provide adequate protection against high 
stakes  gaming  operations  on  the  Tribe’s  reservation.” 
Texas  v.  Ysleta  del  Sur  Pueblo,  220  F. Supp.  2d  668,  677 
(WD Tex. 2001). 

In response, the Tribe adopted a resolution, which is of 
central importance to this case.  See Tribal Resolution No. 
TC–02–86 (Mar. 12, 1986), App. to Pet. for Cert. 121–124. 
The  resolution’s  preamble  contains  a  series  of  prefatory
clauses.  One states that the Tribe has “[n]o interest in con-
ducting high stakes bingo or other gambling operations on 
its  reservation.”    Id.,  at  121.  Another  says  the  Tribe  re-
mains  “firm  in  its  commitment  to  prohibit  outright  any
gambling or bingo in any form on its reservation.”  Id., at 
123 (emphasis added).  At the same time, other clauses as-
sert the Tribe’s view that proposals “to make state gaming 
law  applicable  on  the  reservation  [are]  wholly  unsatisfac-
tory”  and  represent  a  “substantial  infringement  upon
[tribal] self government.”  Id., at 122.  Still, the Tribe con-
cluded, “the controversy over gaming must not be permitted
to  jeopardize”  legislation  granting  it  federal  trust  status. 
Id., at 123.  So the Tribal Council made a single “request[]”:
that  its  congressional  representatives  amend  the  pending
legislation to “provide that all gaming, gambling, lottery, or
bingo,  as  defined  by  the  laws  and  administrative  regula-
tions of the State of Texas, shall be prohibited on the Tribe’s 
reservation or on tribal land.”  Ibid. (emphasis added).

The  Tribe’s  request  ultimately  led  to  enactment  of  the
Restoration Act, which is the statute at issue in this case.