Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf
Page Number: 18

14 

YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO v. TEXAS 

Opinion of the Court 

immediate  aftermath  of  Cabazon,  Congress  adopted  not 
just the Restoration Act; it also adopted other laws govern-
ing tribal gaming activities.  In these laws, Congress again
appeared to reference and employ Cabazon’s distinction be-
tween prohibition and regulation—and Congress did so in 
ways demonstrating that it clearly understood how to grant
a State regulatory jurisdiction over a Tribe’s gaming activ-
ities when it wished to do so.  Cf. Lagos v. United States, 
584 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2018) (slip op., at 6–7).   

Consider two examples.  On the same day it passed the 
Restoration Act, Congress adopted a statute involving the
Wampanoag  Tribe.  But,  contrary  to  its  approach  in  the 
Restoration  Act,  Congress  subjected  that  Tribe’s  lands  to 
“those laws and regulations which prohibit or regulate the 
conduct of bingo or any other game of chance.”  Wampanoag
Tribal Council of Gay Head, Inc., Indian Claims Settlement 
Act  of  1987,  §  9,  101  Stat.  709–710  (emphasis  added). 
Shortly  after  the  Restoration  Act,  Congress  adopted  an-
other statute, this one governing the Catawba Tribe’s gam-
ing activities.  In it, Congress provided that “all laws, ordi-
nances,  and  regulations  of  the  State,  and  its  political
subdivisions, shall govern the regulation of . . . gambling or
wagering  by  the  Tribe  on  and  off  the  Reservation.”    Ca-
tawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claims Settle-
ment Act of 1993, § 14(b), 107 Stat. 1136 (emphasis added).
That Congress chose to use the language of Cabazon in 
different ways in three statutes closely related in time and 
subject matter seems to us too much to ignore.  See State 
Farm Fire  & Casualty Co.  v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, 
580  U. S.  26,  34  (2016)  (explaining  that  when  Congress
“use[s]  . . .  explicit  language  in  one  provision,”  that  “cau-
tions against inferring the same limitation in another pro-
vision”  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted)).    For  two 
Tribes, Congress did more than just prohibit on tribal lands
those  gaming  activities  prohibited  by  state  law.  It  said 
state  regulations  should  apply  as  a  matter  of  federal  law