Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

that it should not be “construed as a grant of civil or crimi-
nal  regulatory  jurisdiction  to  the  State  of  Texas.”    Id.,  at 
669. 

That was not all Congress did.  Because Cabazon left cer-
tain States unable to apply their gaming regulations on In-
dian reservations, some feared the Court’s decision opened 
the  door  to  a  significant  amount  of  new  and  unregulated 
gaming on tribal lands.  See R. Anderson, S. Krakoff, & B. 
Berger,  American  Indian  Law:  Cases  and  Commentary
479–480  (4th  ed.  2020)  (Anderson).    In  1988,  Congress 
sought to fill that perceived void by adopting its own com-
prehensive national legislation:  the Indian Gaming Regu-
latory Act (IGRA), 102 Stat. 2467, 25 U. S. C. § 2701 et seq.; 
Anderson 479–482.  IGRA established rules for three sepa-
rate  classes  of  games.  Relevant  here,  the  law  permitted
Tribes  to  offer  so-called  class  II  games—like  bingo—in 
States that “permi[t] such gaming for any purpose by any 
person,  organization  or  entity.”  § 2710(b)(1)(A).    Mean-
while, the statute allowed Tribes to offer class III games—
like  blackjack  and  baccarat—but  only  pursuant  to 
tribal/state compacts.  § 2703(8); Anderson 480.  To ensure 
compliance with the statute’s terms, IGRA created the Na-
tional Indian Gaming Commission.  § 2704(a). 

C 

In  the  1990s,  the  Tribe  sought  to  negotiate  a  compact 
with Texas to offer class III games pursuant to IGRA.  But 
Texas refused to come to the table.  It argued that the Res-
toration Act displaced IGRA and required the Tribe to fol-
low all of the State’s gaming laws on tribal lands. 

That dispute quickly found its way to court.  Initially, a 
federal  district  court  granted  summary  judgment  for  the 
Tribe, holding that Texas violated IGRA by failing to nego-
tiate in good faith.  On appeal, however, the Fifth Circuit 
reversed.  That court held that the Restoration Act’s direc-
tions superseded IGRA’s and guaranteed that all of “Texas’