Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO ET AL. v. TEXAS 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 20–493.  Argued February 22, 2022—Decided June 15, 2022 

This case represents the latest conflict between Texas gaming officials
and the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Indian Tribe.  In 1968, Congress recog-
nized  the  Ysleta  del  Sur  Pueblo  as  an  Indian  tribe  and  assigned  its 
trust  responsibilities  for  the  Tribe  to  Texas.    82  Stat.  93.  In  1983, 
Texas  renounced  its  trust  responsibilities  as  inconsistent  with  the 
State’s Constitution.  The State also expressed opposition to any new 
federal trust legislation that did not permit the State to apply its own
gaming  laws  on  tribal  lands.    Congress  restored  the  Tribe’s  federal 
trust status in 1987 when it adopted the Ysleta del Sur and Alabama 
and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act. 101 Stat. 666. 
The Restoration Act also “prohibited” as a matter of federal law “[a]ll
gaming  activities  which  are  prohibited  by  the  laws  of  the  State  of 
Texas.”  Id., at 668.  Shortly thereafter, Congress adopted its own com-
prehensive Indian gaming legislation: the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
Act (IGRA).  IGRA established rules for separate classes of games.  As 
relevant  here,  IGRA  permitted  Tribes  to  offer  so-called  class  II 
games—like bingo—in States that “permi[t] such gaming for any pur-
pose by any person, organization or entity.”  25 U. S. C. §2710(b)(1)(A).
IGRA allowed Tribes to offer class III games—like blackjack and bac-
carat—but  only  pursuant  to  negotiated  tribal/state  compacts. 
§2703(8).   

Pursuant  to  IGRA,  the  Tribe  sought  to  negotiate  a  compact  with
Texas to offer class III games.  Texas refused, arguing that the Resto-
ration Act displaced IGRA and required the Tribe to follow all of the
State’s gaming laws on tribal lands.  In subsequent federal litigation, 
the District Court held that Texas violated IGRA by failing to negoti-
ate in good faith.  The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the Resto-