Opinion ID: 2819211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Violation of the Compact

Text: The Tribe next argues that the statute does not abrogate tribal sovereign immunity because the Compact only encompasses a subset of Class III gaming. We affirm because the Compact comprehensively addresses the full range of Class III gaming. As discussed supra, Article 6.2 of the Compact only permits the lottery, parimutuel betting, and additional games that “may hereafter be authorized to be conducted in the State.” The parties disagreed as to the scope of gaming permitted and agreed to pursue a declaratory judgment, which Coeur d’Alene I resolved by stating that no other gaming was permitted in Idaho. Article 6.5 of the Compact squarely addresses this contingency in providing that, upon conclusion of the litigation, “[i]n the event the court(s) determines that no additional types of games are permitted in Idaho under the Act, the Tribe’s gaming shall be limited to the gaming authorized in Article 6.2.” Articles 6.2 and 6.5 comprehensively address which Class III games are permitted and prohibited. The Tribe argues that our decision in Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1997), shows that the Tribe did not violate the Compact. But the Compact in Cabazon only addressed parimutuel betting. Id. at 1059. Thus, we determined that slot machines were “not the subject of a Tribal-State compact.” Id. Here, in contrast, the Compact covers all Class III gaming. The finding that the Band did not breach the Compact “[b]ecause the slot machines . . . are not mentioned,” id. at 1060, does not apply STATE OF IDAHO V. COEUR D’ALENE TRIBE 13 where, as here, the Compact establishes that “gaming shall be limited to the gaming authorized in Article 6.2.”