Source: http://nevadalaw.info/doing-business-with-native-american-tribes-in-nevada-part-5/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:55:46+00:00

Document:
Contracts relating to gaming activities, which are also subject to tribal gaming ordinances.
Several regulatory matters affecting business on tribal land are discussed below.
As long as they comply with federal Environmental Protection Agency requirements, tribes can issue environmental permits and licenses regarding the use of tribal lands.
Tribal gaming is regulated by The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (“IGRA”), as well as tribal laws, the Interior Department, the National Indian Gaming Commission, and well as the terms of various tribal-state gaming compacts. IGRA limited the rights of tribes significantly by subjecting their activities to state government oversight in ways that were never before required of tribes. Specifically, in order to engage in Class III (casino-style) gaming, a tribe must enter into a tribal-state gaming compact. IGRA attempts to ensure that tribes are the sole owners and beneficiaries of on-reservation gaming activities. It requires that tribal net gaming revenues be used to fund tribal government operations or programs, provide for the general welfare of the tribe and its members, promote tribal economic development, donate to charitable organizations, and fund operations of government agencies providing services to tribes.
Tribes are not generally subject to state or federal employment laws and regulations.
Tribes are at liberty to structure caps on product liability in order to attract business development on tribal land.
Many tribes provide private unemployment and worker’s compensation insurance, allowing businesses to opt out of state-run systems.
Tribes are not generally subject to zoning, land-use, and permitting restrictions found outside tribal lands. They are therefore often able to offer businesses more flexibility than might be found outside of tribal lands. Further, since improvements on tribal trust lands are generally exempt from state taxation, businesses can reduce or eliminate real property taxes in some cases.
 25 U.S.C. § 396a; 25 U.S.C. § 2102(a).
 25 U.S.C. § 3504; 25 C.F.R. § 224.
 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b); 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(9); 25 C.F.R. § 553.
 Montana v. U.S., 450 U.S. 544 (1981); Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (2008); but see Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) (the court has “never held that a tribal court had jurisdiction over a nonmember defendant.”).
 Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (2008) (quoting Montana v. U.S., 450 U.S. 544 (1981)).

References: § 396
 § 2102
 § 3504
 § 224
 § 2710
 § 2710
 § 553
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.