Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf
Page Number: 11

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

argued, the Fifth Circuit was clear in Ysleta I that the Res-
toration  Act  forbids  the  Tribe  from  defying  any  of  the 
State’s gaming regulations.  And, Texas stressed, under its 
laws  bingo  remains  permissible  today  only  for  charitable 
purposes and only subject to a broad array of regulations.

Finding itself bound by Ysleta I, the District Court sided 
with Texas and enjoined the Tribe’s bingo operations.  But 
the court also chose to stay its injunction pending appeal.
The  court  did  so  because  it  thought  that  either  the  Fifth 
Circuit or this Court might wish to reconsider Ysleta I.  See 
2019 WL 5589051, *1 (WD Tex., Mar. 28, 2019).  After all, 
the Restoration Act effectively federalizes only those state 
laws that prohibit gaming activities.  The statute expressly
states that nothing in it may be read as authorizing Texas 
to enforce criminal or civil regulations on tribal lands.  And 
when  it  comes  to  bingo,  the  State  permits  at  least  some 
forms  of  the  game  subject  to  regulation.    In  the  District 
Court’s judgment, “the Tribe [had] a sufficient likelihood of 
success on the merits” under the terms of the Restoration 
Act  “to  support  a  stay.”    Ibid.   The  District  Court  further 
found that, without a stay, the injury to the Tribe would be 
“truly  irreparable.”    Id.,  at  *2.    Speaking  Rock’s  revenues 
account  for  60  percent  of  the  Tribe’s  operating  budget,
which supports “significant educational, governmental, and 
charitable initiatives.”  Ibid; Brief for Petitioners 17.  And 
when Speaking Rock closed due to one of the many previous
disputes,  tribal  unemployment  rose  from  3  to  28  percent. 
See id., at 18. 

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit “re-reaffirm[ed]” Ysleta I and 
held that the decision “resolve[d] this dispute.”  955 F. 3d 
408,  414,  417  (2020).  Ysleta  I  expressly  held  that  all  of 
“Texas’ gaming laws and regulations . . . operate as surro-
gate federal law on the Tribe’s reservation.”  955 F. 3d, at 
414 (emphasis deleted).  And because the Tribe’s bingo op-
erations  did  not  conform  to  the  State’s  bingo  regulations,
the court held, they were impermissible.  Ibid.