Opinion ID: 1160930
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Federal Indian Gaming Law

Text: We now briefly review the federal law concerning gaming on Indian lands. In 1987, the United States Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (1987) 480 U.S. 202, 107 S.Ct. 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 244 ( Cabazon ), interpreting Public Law No. 280 (Aug. 15, 1953) 67 Statutes at Large 588. In Public Law No. 280, Congress granted certain states, including California, broad criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in Indian country (including all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government (18 U.S.C. § 1151)) within their respective borders. Pursuant to this grant, the Cabazon court held, the laws of these states generally applied to activities in Indian country to the extent the law was prohibitory, but did not generally apply to the extent it was regulatory, the shorthand test being whether the conduct at issue violates the state's public policy. ( Cabazon, supra, at pp. 207-210, 107 S.Ct. 1083.) On the particular question at issue, whether California could apply to certain Indian tribes on their reservations its law governing the operation of bingo (Pen.Code, § 326.5), the high court gave a negative answer: In 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. ( Cabazon, supra, at p. 211, 107 S.Ct. 1083, fn. omitted.) In 1988, in the wake of Cabazon, Congress enacted IGRA (Pub.L. No. 100-97 (Oct. 17, 1988), 102 Stat. 2467, as amended, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. and 18 U.S.C. § 1166 et seq.), with the declared purpose 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 (25 U.S.C. § 2702(1)), while at the same time providing a basis for regulation of Indian gaming so as to shield it from organized crime and corruption, prevent exploitation for non-Indian profit, and ensure fair and honest gaming. (IGRA, § 3; 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1), (2).) Section 4 of IGRA divides gaming into three categoriesclass I, class II, and class III. (25 U.S.C. § 2703(6), (7), (8).) Class I gaming is social games solely for prizes of minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming engaged in by individuals as a part of, or in connection with, tribal ceremonies or celebrations. (25 U.S.C. § 2703(6).) Class II gaming is defined to include: (i) the game of chance commonly known as bingo and (ii) card games that are explicitly authorized by the laws of the State or are not explicitly prohibited by the laws of the State and are played at any location in the State, but only if such card games are played in conformity with those laws and regulations (if any) of the State regarding hours or periods of operation of such card games or limitations on wagers or pot sizes in such card games. (25 U.S.C. § 2703(7)(A).) The act excludes from its definition of class II gaming: (i) any banking card games, including baccarat, chemin de fer, or blackjack (21) and (ii) electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance or slot machines of any kind. ( Id., § 2703(7)(B).) Class III gaming is defined as all forms of gaming that are not class I gaming or class II gaming. (25 U.S.C. § 2703(8).) Section 11 of IGRA provides for the regulation of each of the three categories of gamingfrom the lightest regulation for class I, by tribal action alone without federal or state participation; to heavier regulation for class II, by joint federal and tribal participation; to the heaviest regulation for class III, by state and tribal participation through tribal/state compacts plus federal oversight. (25 U.S.C. § 2710.) Specifically as to class III gaming, section 11(d)(1) of IGRA states that class III gaming activities are lawful ... only if such activities are: (A) authorized by an ordinance or resolution that, among other things, is adopted by an Indian tribe and approved by the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission; (B) located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity; and (C) conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the State ... that is in effect. (25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1).) Section 11(d)(3)(A) of IGRA describes the process whereby the Indian tribe and the state may commence negotiations toward a tribal/state compact: the tribe must request that the state enter into negotiations, and, on receiving such request, the state must proceed to negotiate with the Indian tribe in good faith. ... (25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(A).) A compact takes effect only when approved by the Secretary of the Interior. (25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(B).)