Today, Indian gaming is big business. In 2010, 237 of the 565 federally recognized tribes operated 422 tribal gaming enterprises which generated $25.6 billion in revenues. Twenty-eight states have some form of Indian gaming. Indian gaming accounted for 25% of the total revenues of the legal gaming industry and is its fastest-growing segment. Indian gaming started out small. In the 1980s, when the federal government severely cut funds for Indian tribes, Indian tribes began to turn to high-stakes bingo and other gaming to raise money to fund tribal government operations. The Department of the Interior and other federal agencies actively encouraged tribal bingo to raise revenue to fund tribal governments. However, the legality of these operations was uncertain. Local and state authorities threatened to shut down these operations, claiming that they violated state law. Although federal courts enjoined state enforcement actions, states continued to pursue them. The legality of Indian gaming under federal law was also questionable. Meanwhile, a number of bills were introduced in Congress to regulate the growing Indian gaming industry. In 1987, in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians , the Supreme Court settled that Indian tribes could engage in gaming on tribal land free from state law. The Court held that federal and tribal interests supporting tribal gaming preempted state laws regulating tribal gaming on tribal land. It did not address federal authority over Indian gaming. Cabazon focused congressional efforts to regulate Indian gaming that culminated in the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). IGRA provides a statutory basis for Indian tribes to conduct gaming on "Indian lands"; establishes a framework for regulating Indian gaming that divides authority between tribes, states, and the federal government; and created the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) with authority to regulate tribal gaming on the federal level. IGRA prohibits gaming on most land acquired in trust after its effective date, October 17, 1988. However, there are important exceptions for certain newly acquired lands. For the purposes of regulation, IGRA divided Indian gaming into three classes: class I gaming includes social or traditional gaming played for prizes of minimal value and is subject to exclusive tribal regulation; class II gaming includes bingo and similar games and non-banked card games, and is subject to regulation by the tribes and NIGC, and may be conducted only in states that allow such gaming; and, class III gaming includes all other games and may be conducted only pursuant to tribal-state compacts approved by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) in states that allow such gaming or pursuant to procedures approved by the Secretary under circumstances specified by IGRA. IGRA also created the NIGC. NIGC has responsibility to monitor class II gaming and to approve tribal gaming ordinances and management contracts, and authority to impose fines and close gaming operations based on a violation of IGRA, NIGC regulations, or tribal gaming ordinances. Class III gaming is the most lucrative class of gaming, and a tribal-state compact is the key to a tribe's ability to engage in class III gaming. IGRA requires that states negotiate class III gaming compacts in "good faith." In order to provide states with an incentive to negotiate class III gaming compacts, IGRA provided that tribes may sue states in federal district court to enforce the good faith requirement. Upon a judicial finding of bad faith, IGRA provided a mechanism by which tribes may engage in class III gaming in the face of recalcitrant states. However, in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida , the Supreme Court held that Congress did not have authority under the Indian Commerce Clause to waive the states' sovereign immunity to lawsuits by tribes to enforce the requirement that states negotiate class III gaming compacts in good faith. Seminole shifted the balance of power struck in IGRA between the tribes and the states in favor of the states by taking away the tribes' recourse when states refuse to negotiate class III compacts or demand concessions prohibited by IGRA. Increasingly, states have demanded that tribes agree to share gaming revenues and make concessions on issues unrelated to gaming in order to obtain class III gaming compacts. More recently, Congress's attention has focused primarily on off-reservation gaming—that is, gaming on Indian lands located away from a tribe's reservation. There have been several bills introduced which would amend IGRA to limit tribes' ability to game on land located away from their reservations. In the 1980s, the Department of the Interior and other executive branch agencies supported tribes developing gaming operations as a way to raise money to fund their governments. However, it appears that tribal bingo operations violated the Federal Assimilative Crimes Act (FACA) and the Organized Crime Control Act (OCCA). Both of these acts made it a federal crime to conduct gaming in Indian country if that gaming would violate state law if it were conducted in the state. In addition, the Johnson Act prohibited gaming devices, such as slot machines, in Indian country. Although federal officials never took steps to shut down tribal bingo, these operations were vulnerable to being shut down should the federal government have a change of heart and choose to enforce FACA or OCCA. In 1987, the Supreme Court considered whether states could enforce state gaming laws against tribal gaming operations on tribal land. The Cabazon and Morongo Bands of Mission Indians are two federally recognized tribes with reservations in Riverside County, California. Each Band conducted bingo on its reservation pursuant to a tribal ordinance approved by the Secretary. Cabazon also had a card club. All the tribes' games were open to the public and played predominantly by non-Indians. The profits from these games were the tribes' sole source of income and the games were a major source of employment for tribal members. The state sought to enforce Section 326.5 of the California penal code. Section 326.5 does not strictly prohibit bingo. Rather it permits it under certain circumstances: the games must be operated and staffed by members of designated charitable organizations who may not be compensated for their work; profits must be kept in separate accounts and used only for charitable purposes; and, prizes may not exceed $250 per game. Riverside County also sought to apply its ordinances regulating bingo and prohibiting the card games. The federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit both held that the state and the county did not have authority over the tribal bingo and card games. The Supreme Court began its analysis by noting that "tribal sovereignty is dependent on, and subordinate to, only the Federal Government, not the States. It is clear, however, that state laws may be applied to tribal Indians on their reservations if Congress has expressly so provided." California and the county argued that Congress provided for their authority over the tribal games under Public Law 280 and OCCA. Public Law 280 granted to certain states, including California, criminal and civil adjudicatory jurisdiction over Indian country. Therefore "when a State seeks to enforce a law within an Indian reservation under the authority of Pub. L. 280, it must be determined whether the law is criminal in nature, and thus fully applicable to the reservation …, or civil in nature, and applicable only as it may be relevant to private civil litigation in state court." Rejecting California's argument that its gaming laws were criminal in nature because they carried criminal penalties, the Court held that the difference between laws that are criminal in nature and those that are civil in nature depends on whether the law is "prohibitory" or "regulatory." "The shorthand test is whether the conduct at issue violates the State's public policy." The Court concluded, "[i]n light of the fact that California permits a substantial amount of gambling activity, including bingo, and actually promotes gambling through its state lottery, we must conclude that California regulates rather than prohibits gambling in general and bingo in particular." Because Section 326.5 was regulatory in nature, Public Law 280 did not authorize California to enforce it on the reservations. The Court also rejected the state's and county's argument that they had authority to enforce state law on the reservations under OCCA. "There is nothing in OCCA indicating that the States are to have any part in enforcing federal criminal laws or are authorized to make arrests on Indian reservations that in the absence of OCCA they could not effect.... [T]here is no warrant for California to make arrests on reservations and thus, through OCCA, enforce its gambling laws against Indian tribes." The tribes urged the Court to simply affirm the lower court without further analysis, relying on the statement from McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n that "'state laws generally are not applicable to tribal Indians on an Indian reservation except where Congress has expressly provided that State laws shall apply.'" However, the Court noted that the law is not that black and white. In particular, the Court noted two cases concerning on-reservation tribal sales of cigarettes to non-Indians in which the Court held that even though Congress did not expressly authorize the states to apply its sales tax on the tribes, the state could require the tribes to collect state sales tax. Because Cabazon also involved a "state burden on tribal Indians in the context of their dealings with non-Indians," the Court determined that: [d]ecision in this case turns on whether state authority is pre-empted by the operation of federal law; and state jurisdiction is pre-empted if it interferes or is incompatible with federal and tribal interests reflected in federal law, unless the state interests at stake are sufficient to justify the assertion of state authority. The inquiry is to proceed in light of traditional notions of Indian sovereignty and the congressional goal of Indian self-government, including its overriding goal of encouraging tribal self-sufficiency and economic development. The Court characterized the federal goals of "encouraging tribal self-sufficiency and economic development" as "important."