Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf
Page Number: 7

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

Stan. L. Rev. 1213, 1233–1234 (1975) (discussing trust ob-
ligations).

This arrangement persisted until 1983.  That year, Texas
renounced  its  trust  responsibilities,  asserting  that  they 
were inconsistent with the State’s Constitution.  See 2019 
WL  639971,  *1  (WD  Tex.,  Feb.  14,  2019).  The  Tribe  re-
sponded to this development by seeking new congressional 
legislation to reestablish its trust relationship with the fed-
eral  government.  But  that  effort  quickly  became  bogged 
down in a dispute.  Of all things, it concerned bingo.  Texas, 
it seems, worried that allowing tribal gaming would have a
detrimental effect on “existing charitable bingo operations 
in the State of Texas.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. 121.  And be-
cause Texas judged that its laws would be inapplicable on
tribal  lands  without  federal  approval,  the  State  opposed 
any new federal trust legislation unless it included a special 
provision permitting it to apply its own gaming laws on the
Tribe’s lands.  See ibid. 

B 
Years of negotiations ensued.  But one development dur-
ing this period turned out to have particular salience even 
though it did not immediately concern either the Tribe or 
Texas.  In  February  1987,  this  Court  issued  California  v. 
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U. S. 202.  In it, the 
Court  addressed  Public  Law  280,  a  statute  Congress  had 
adopted in 1953 to allow a handful of States to enforce some
of  their  criminal—but  not  certain  of  their  civil—laws  on 
particular tribal lands.  See Bryan, 426 U. S., at 383–385. 
Seeking to apply that statutory direction in the context of 
Indian gaming, the Court held that, if a state law prohibits
a particular game, it falls within Public Law 280’s grant of
criminal  jurisdiction  and  a  State  may  enforce  its  ban  on
tribal lands.  Cabazon, 480 U. S., at 209–210.  But if state 
laws merely regulate a game’s availability, the Court ruled, 
Public Law 280 does not permit a State to enforce its rules