Opinion ID: 784592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA)3

Text: 4 In California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 107 S.Ct. 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 244 (1987), the Supreme Court invalidated an attempt by California to enforce California Penal Code § 326.5 (the bingo statute) against tribes that operated bingo halls. The Supreme Court characterized the bingo statute as regulatory, rather than criminal, and held that Public Law No. 280 prohibited the enforcement of state regulatory statutes against Indian tribes: 5 [I]f the intent of a state law is generally to prohibit certain conduct, it falls within Pub. L. 280's grant of criminal jurisdiction, but if the state law generally permits the conduct at issue, subject to regulation, it must be classified as civil/regulatory and Pub. L. 280 does not authorize its enforcement on an Indian reservation. 6 Cabazon, 480 U.S. at 209, 107 S.Ct. 1083. Because California permitted a substantial amount of gaming activity, including bingo, the bingo statute could not be characterized as criminal or prohibitory and therefore could not be enforced on Indian lands. 7 As a response to the Cabazon decision, Congress enacted IGRA as a means of granting states some role in the regulation of Indian gaming. As noted in the opinion below, 8 IGRA was Congress' compromise solution to the difficult questions involving Indian gaming. The Act was passed in order to provide a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments and to shield [tribal gaming] from organized crime and other corrupting influences to ensure that the Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation. 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1), (2). IGRA is an example of cooperative federalism in that it seeks to balance the competing sovereign interests of the federal government, state governments, and Indian tribes, by giving each a role in the regulatory scheme. 9 Artichoke Joe's v. Norton, 216 F.Supp.2d 1084, 1092 (E.D.Cal.2002) (alteration in original). 10 IGRA creates three classes of gaming, each of which is subject to a different level of regulation. Class I gaming covers social games solely for prizes of minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming engaged in by individuals as part of, or in connection with, tribal ceremonies or celebrations. 25 U.S.C. § 2703(6). Class II gaming includes bingo and card games that are explicitly authorized by a state or not explicitly prohibited by the laws of the State and are [legally] played at any location in the State. Id. § 2703(7)(A)(ii). Class II gaming specifically excludes banked card games and slot machines. 4 11 At issue in this case is class III gaming, the most heavily regulated and most controversial form of gambling under IGRA. Class III gaming includes all forms of gaming that are not class I gaming or class II gaming. Id. § 2703(8). It includes the types of high-stakes games usually associated with casino-style gambling, as well as slot machines and parimutuel horse-wagering. Class III gaming is lawful on Indian lands only if three conditions are satisfied: 5 (1) authorization by an ordinance or resolution of the governing body of the Indian tribe and the Chair of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC); 6 (2) location in a state that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity; and (3) the existence of a Tribal-State compact approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Id. § 2710(d)(1). 12 IGRA's compacting requirement allows states to negotiate with tribes that are located within their borders regarding aspects of class III Indian gaming that might affect legitimate state interests. Id. § 2710(d)(3)(C). The compacting process gives to states civil regulatory authority that they otherwise would lack under Cabazon, while granting to tribes the ability to offer legal class III gaming. Keweenaw Bay Indian Cmty. v. United States, 136 F.3d 469, 472 (6th Cir.1998). IGRA also imposes on states an obligation to conduct compact negotiations in good faith, 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(A), and allows tribes to enforce that obligation in federal court, id. § 2710(d)(7)(A). 7 13