Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

12 

YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO v. TEXAS 

Opinion of the Court 

an action in [federal court] to enjoin violations of [subsec-
tion (a)].”  101 Stat. 669.  Put differently, subsection (c) al-
ready precludes state courts and state agencies from exer-
cising jurisdiction over violations of subsection (a).  To make 
any sense of the statute, subsection (b) must do something 
besides repeat that work.

Stepping back, a full look at the statute’s structure sug-
gests a set of simple and coherent commands.  In subsec-
tion (a),  Congress  effectively  federalized  and  applied  to 
tribal lands those state laws that prohibit or absolutely ban
a  particular  gaming  activity.  In  subsection  (b),  Congress 
explained  that  it  was  not  authorizing  the  application  of 
Texas’s  gaming  regulations  on  tribal  lands.    In  subsec-
tion (c), Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction to en-
tertain claims by Texas that the Tribe has violated subsec-
tion  (a).  Texas’s  competing  interpretation  of  the  law 
renders  individual  statutory  terms  duplicative  and  whole
provisions without work to perform.1 

Even if fair questions remain after a look at the ordinary 

B 

—————— 

1 The dissent offers a surplusage argument of its own, arguing that the 
Court’s reading of § 107 duplicates the work done by § 105(f ).  See post, 
at  12.  That  is  mistaken.    Section  105(f )  does  not  specifically  address
tribal gaming, but instead broadly extends Public Law 280 and its asso-
ciated jurisdictional rules to the Tribe’s reservation.  By contrast, § 107 
speaks only and specifically to gaming.  And while it does extend much 
of the Public Law 280 regime to tribal gaming, it also departs from that
framework  in  at  least  two  significant  ways.    First,  § 107  incorporates 
Texas’s  criminal  gaming  prohibitions  as  surrogate  federal  law,  while 
Public Law 280 allows particular States to apply their own laws directly
to tribal lands.  Second, it establishes unique jurisdictional rules for ju-
dicial  review  of  alleged  violations  of  Texas’s  gaming  prohibitions.    See 
post, at 13.  Where Public Law 280 grants state courts jurisdiction over
violations of state criminal prohibitory laws, subsection (c) grants federal 
courts exclusive jurisdiction over alleged violations of § 107, “[n]otwith-
standing section 105(f ).”  There is no superfluity here.