Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf
Page Number: 8

4 

YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO v. TEXAS 

Opinion of the Court 

on tribal lands.  See id., at 210–211. 

The Court then turned to apply this prohibitory/regula-
tory distinction to California’s bingo laws.  Much like Texas 
today,  California  in  1987  permitted  bingo  in  various  cir-
cumstances (including for charitable purposes), but treated 
deviations from its rules as criminal violations.  See id., at 
205, 208–209.  Because California allowed some bingo to be
played,  the  Court  reasoned,  the  State  “regulate[d]  rather
than prohibit[ed]” the game.  Id., at 211.  From this, it fol-
lowed  that  Public  Law  280  did  not  authorize  the  State  to 
apply its own bingo laws on tribal lands.  Id., at 210–211. 
In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected California’s
suggestion that its laws were prohibitory rather than regu-
latory because they were enforceable by criminal sanctions, 
explaining  that  “an  otherwise  regulatory  law”  is  not  en-
forceable under Public Law 280 merely because a State la-
bels it “criminal.”  Id., at 211.  “Otherwise,” the Court ex-
plained,  Public  Law  280’s  “distinction”  between  criminal 
and civil laws “could easily be avoided.”  Ibid. 

It appears the Court’s decision helped catalyze new legis-
lation.  After  Cabazon,  “congressional  efforts  to  pass  [In-
dian  gaming]  legislation  . . .  that  had  been  ongoing  since 
1983  gained  momentum,  with  Indian  tribes’  position
strengthened.”  W. Wood, The (Potential) Legal History of 
Indian  Gaming,  63  Ariz.  L.  Rev.  969,  1027,  and  n.  353 
(2021) (Wood).  In fact, just six months after the decision, in
August 1987, Congress finally adopted the Ysleta del Sur 
and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Resto-
ration  Act,  101  Stat.  666  (Restoration  Act).  In  that  law, 
Congress restored the Tribe’s federal trust status.  And to 
resolve  Texas’s  gaming  objections,  Congress  seemingly 
drew straight from Cabazon, employing its distinction be-
tween prohibited and regulated gaming activity.  The Res-
toration  Act  “prohibited”  as  a  matter  of  federal  law  “[a]ll 
gaming  activities  which  are  prohibited  by  the  laws  of  the
State of Texas.”  101 Stat. 668.  But the Act also provided