The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) provides a framework for gaming on "Indian lands," according to which Indian tribes may conduct gaming that need not conform to state law. The three classes of gaming authorized by IGRA progress from class I social gaming, through class II bingo and non-banking card games, to class III casino gaming. One of the requirements for class II and class III gaming is that the gaming be "located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization or entity." The federal courts have interpreted this to permit tribes to conduct types of gaming permitted in the state without state limits or conditions. For example, tribes in states that permit "Las Vegas" nights for charitable purposes may seek a tribal-state compact for class III casino gaming. On the other hand, the fact that state law permits some form of lottery or authorizes a state lottery is not, in itself, sufficient to permit a tribal-state compact allowing all forms of casino gaming. A key concept of IGRA is its territorial component. Gaming under IGRA may only take place on "Indian lands." That term has two meanings: (1) "all lands within the limits of any Indian reservation"; and (2) "any lands title to which is either held in trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or individual or held by any Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction by the United States against alienation and over which an Indian tribe exercises governmental power." Under the first alternative, gaming under IGRA may take place on any land within an Indian reservation, whether or not the tribe or a tribal member owns the land and whether or not the land is held in trust. Determining the applicable boundaries of a reservation is a matter of congressional intent and may entail a detailed analysis of the language of statutes ceding tribal reservation land, and the circumstances surrounding their enactment as well the subsequent jurisdictional history of the land in question. The second alternative has two prongs: (a) the land must be in trust or restricted status, and (b) the tribe must exercise governmental authority over it. Determining trust or restricted status involves Department of the Interior (DOI or department) records. Determining whether a tribe exercises governmental authority may be a simple factual matter involving, for example, whether the tribe has a governmental organization that performs traditional governmental functions such as imposing taxes. On the other hand, it could be a matter requiring judicial construction of federal statutes. Congress has the power to determine whether to take tribal land into trust. There are many statutes that require DOI to take land into trust for a tribe or an individual Indian. An array of statutes grant the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) the discretion to acquire land in trust for individual Indian tribes; principal among them is the Wheeler-Howard, or Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA). Although the IRA has been held by the Supreme Court to apply only to tribes "under Federal jurisdiction" in 1934, a recent opinion of the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior provides guidance on how tribes may be able to satisfy that requirement. Procedures for land acquisition are specified in 25 C.F.R., Part 151. By this process, Indian owners of fee land, that is, land owned outright and unencumbered by liens that impair marketability, may apply to have their fee title conveyed to the SOI to be held in trust for their benefit. Among the effects of this process are the removal of the land from state and local tax rolls and the inability of the Indian owners to sell the land or have it taken from them by legal process to collect on a debt or for foreclosure of a mortgage. In determining whether to approve an application to take land into trust under this statute, the SOI is required to consider a number of factors and to inform "state and local governments having regulatory jurisdiction over the land to be acquired," giving them "30 days in which to provide written comments as to the acquisition's potential impacts on regulatory jurisdiction, real property taxes and special assessments." Until the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2012 decision in Match-E-Be - Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak , there was an assumption that U.S. sovereign immunity under the Quiet Title Act barred challenges to any decision of the Secretary to take land into trust once title has passed to the United States. The Quiet Title Act authorizes the federal courts "to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest," but not with respect to "trust or restricted Indian lands." In State of South Dakota v. U.S. Department of the Interior , a federal circuit court made such an assumption, prompting DOI to issue a regulation requiring a 30-day waiting period between the date of the Secretary's final determination to take land into trust and the actual trust acquisition. In Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Quiet Title Act's preservation of sovereign immunity for quiet title actions involving Indian trust lands did not extend to suits in which the plaintiff is not seeking to claim title, that is, to take over the land. Moreover, the Court held that the Federal Administrative Procedure Act's judicial review provision permitted suits within its six-year statute of limitations period. The decision also includes a broad interpretation of who may maintain standing under the main statute under which land is taken into trust, 25 U.S.C. Section 465, refusing to accept the arguments of DOI and the Indian tribe that standing should be limited to those, such as state and local governments who might lose tax revenues or nearby Indian tribes who might have competing claims to the land, who would be directly affected by the land acquisition. Instead, the Court determined that a plaintiff who owns nearby property and asserts that the planned use of the land as a gaming casino will harm his enjoyment of his property satisfies the standing requirements, placing his interests "at least arguably ... 'within the zone ... protected or regulated by [25 U.S.C.§465].''' In response to the decision, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) of the Department of the Interior (DOI) revised its Land Acquisition regulations, 25 C.F.R., Part 151, to eliminate the 30-day waiting period and specify how parties seeking judicial review of land-into-trust decisions may discern when final agency action occurs for the two kinds of decisions possible for land-into-trust applications. Decisions by the SOI or the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs (AS-IA) are final agency actions. When the SOI or the AS-IA issues a decision to take land into trust, the DOI must publish a notice of the decision "promptly" in the Federal Register and take the land into trust "[i]immediately." In contrast, land-into-trust decisions by Bureau of Indian Affairs officials (BIA-level decisions) are not final agency action and do not require Federal Register notice. They require notice in "a newspaper of general circulation serving the affected area of the decision" as well as notice to state and local officials with "regulatory jurisdiction over the land to be acquired" and to "interested parties who have made themselves known, in writing, to the official prior to the decision." Land may not be taken into trust pursuant to BIA-level decisions "until administrative remedies are exhausted ... or ... the time for filing a notice of appeal has expired and no administrative appeal has been filed." Once a BIA-level decision has become final, the land is to be acquired in trust "[i]mmediately." In a June 4, 2015, en banc decision, in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a claim that land taken into trust for a tribe not recognized in 1934 may not be raised decades after the trust acquisition in a collateral attack on the trust acquisition. Instead, according to the decision, a challenge to the validity of a trust acquisition must be brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and is, therefore, subject to a six-year statute of limitations. The en banc court overturned an earlier opinion issued by a divided three-judge panel. The case involves a tract of land taken into trust in 1994 for the Big Lagoon Rancheria of California (Big Lagoon). Big Lagoon first appeared on the list of "Indian Tribal Entities That Have a Government-to-Government Relationship With the United States" in 1979. The dispute with California was precipitated by a breakdown in negotiations for a tribal-state gaming compact under IGRA when California objected to the site preferred by the Big Lagoon for its gaming operation. On the basis of the Supreme Court's Carcier i v. Salazar decision, the state claimed that the site had not been validly taken into trust because the tribe had not been under federal jurisdiction in 1934. It, therefore, asserted that the state was under no obligation to negotiate in good faith for tribal gaming on a tract of trust land that did not meet IGRA's definition of "Indian lands," and, thus, was not eligible for IGRA gaming. A majority of the Ninth Circuit three-judge panel agreed with California. It found that "[t]here was no family or other group on what is now the Big Lagoon Rancheria in 1934"; that Big Lagoon was not a tribe under federal jurisdiction in 1934; and, therefore, that the DOI had no authority under the IRA to take land into trust for Big Lagoon. According to the majority, Big Lagoon could not rely on the DOI's action in taking the particular land into trust to assert tribal jurisdiction over it for IGRA purposes.