Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

16 

YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO v. TEXAS 

Opinion of the Court 

the final sentence in subsection (a).  See post, at 9–10, 13. 
That sentence states that “[t]he  provisions of this subsec-
tion  are  enacted  in  accordance  with  the  tribe’s  request  in
Tribal Resolution No. T.C.–02–86.”  101 Stat. 668–669.  In 
the referenced 1986 resolution, the Tribe announced its op-
position to Texas’s legislative efforts to have all its gaming
laws  apply  on  tribal  lands.  Such  a  result,  the  resolution 
said, would represent “a substantial infringement upon the
Tribe[’s]  power  of  self-government  . . .  [ i]nconsistent  with 
the central purposes of restoration of the federal trust rela-
tionship.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. 122.  At the same time, to 
prevent  extension  of  Texas  law  to  its  reservation  and  to 
avoid “jeopardiz[ing]” its request for renewed federal trust
status, the Tribe (1) announced its own intention to prohibit
gaming or  bingo on its reservation, and (2) authorized its
negotiators in Washington to accept federal legislation pro-
hibiting  gaming  on  tribal  lands  as  an  alternative  to  state 
regulation.  Id., at 123.  Before us, Texas does not question 
that  the  Tribe  was  (and  remains)  free  to  change  its  own 
laws after adopting that resolution.  But, the State says, the
fact that Congress referenced the tribal resolution in sub-
section (a) suggests that the Restoration Act should be read
“broadly” to allow Texas to apply its gaming regulations on 
tribal lands.  Brief for Respondent 22.

It’s an unsatisfying suggestion for at least a few reasons.
In the first place, while subsection (a) explains that the Res-
toration  Act  was  “enacted  in  accordance  with”  the  Tribe’s 
resolution, it does not purport to incorporate that resolution
into federal law.  Congress knows exactly how to adopt into 
federal law the terms of another writing or resolution when 
it wishes.  It can and has said, for example, that a tribal law 
or resolution “shall have the same force and effect as if it 
were  set  out  in  full  in  this  subchapter.”    25  U. S. C. 
§ 5396(b).  But even Texas does not suggest that Congress 
went that far in the Restoration Act. 

With that possibility shelved, it is hard to see what’s left.