Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf
Page Number: 29

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

5 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

107(a) begins with the primary rule.  It states unequivocally 
that  “[a]ll  gaming  activities  which  are  prohibited  by  the 
laws of the State of Texas are hereby prohibited on the res-
ervation and on lands of the tribe.”  101 Stat. 668.  It con-
tinues by noting that this rule was “enacted in accordance 
with the tribe’s request in Tribal Resolution No. T.C.–02–
86.”  Id., at 669. 

The next part, §107(b), says that the section’s prohibition 
on gaming on the reservation should not be construed as a 
“grant  of  civil  or  criminal  regulatory  jurisdiction  to  the 
State of Texas.”  Ibid. 

Finally, §107(c) clarifies how the gaming provision is to 
be enforced: “Notwithstanding section 105(f ), the courts of 
the United States”—rather than Texas courts—“shall have 
exclusive  jurisdiction  over  any  offense  in  violation  of 
[§107(a)].”  Ibid.  “However,” §107(c) continues, “nothing in
this  section  shall  be  construed  as  precluding  the  State  of
Texas from bringing an action in the courts of the United 
States to enjoin violations of the provisions of this section.”  
Ibid.  This means that—unlike most state laws that apply 
on  tribal  land,  which  Texas  can  directly  enforce  given  its
authority under §105(f )—Texas cannot directly enforce its 
gaming  laws  in  state  court.  Instead,  if  Texas  determines 
the  Tribe  is  conducting  prohibited  gaming  activities,  it 
must seek relief by way of a federal-court injunction. 

B 
It was not long before things wound up in federal court.
The Pueblo sued first.  Although the Tribe had previously
expressed its “firm” “commitment to prohibit outright any
gambling or bingo in any form on its reservation,” App. to 
Pet. for Cert. 123, it now wished to host a bonanza of high-
stakes,  casino-style  games,  including  baccarat,  blackjack,
craps,  roulette,  and  more,  Ysleta  del  Sur  Pueblo  Tribe  v. 
Texas, 36 F. 3d 1325, 1331, n. 12 (CA5 1994).  The dispute
made its way to the Fifth Circuit, which ruled against the