Opinion ID: 1104877
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: igra

Text: Indian tribes are independent sovereigns. The Indian Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution grants only Congress the power to override their sovereignty on Indian lands. U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 3 (The Congress shall have Power ... [t]o regulate Commerce with... the Indian Tribes.); see also California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 207, 107 S.Ct. 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 244 (1987) (noting that tribal sovereignty is subordinate only to the federal government). Before IGRA, states had no role in regulating Indian gaming. See Cabazon, 480 U.S. at 202, 107 S.Ct. 1083. Congress enacted IGRA in 1988. Among other things, the statute provides 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). IGRA divides gaming into three classes: Class I includes social games solely for prizes of minimal value. Id. § 2703(6). Class II includes the game of chance commonly known as bingo and non-banked card gamesthat is, games in which participants play against only each other; the host facility (the house) has no stake in the outcome. Id. § 2703(7). Class III the only type relevant herecomprises all other types of gaming, including slot machines, pari-mutuel wagering (such as horse and greyhound racing), lotteries, and banked card gamessuch as baccarat, blackjack (twenty-one), and chemin de fer in which participants play against the house. Id. § 2703(6)-(8). IGRA permits Class III gaming on tribal lands, but only in limited circumstances. It is lawful only if it is (1) authorized by tribal ordinance, (2) located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity, and (3) conducted in accordance with a Tribal-State compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the State ... that is in effect.  Id. § 2710(d)(1) (emphasis added). IGRA provides for tribes to negotiate compacts with their host states. Upon a tribe's request, a state  shall negotiate with the Indian tribe in good faith to enter into such a compact. Id. § 2710(d)(3)(A) (emphasis added). If the parties successfully negotiate a compact and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (Department) approves it, the compact takes effect when notice of approval by the Secretary is published in the Federal Register. Id. § 2710(d)(3)(B), (8). If negotiations fail, IGRA allows a tribe to sue the state in federal court. If the state continues to refuse consent, the Secretary may prescribe ... procedures permitting Class III gaming. See id. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(vii). The United States Supreme Court has held, howeverin a case involving the Seminole Tribe's attempts to offer Class III gaming in Floridathat IGRA did not abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 47, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996). Therefore, states need not consent to such lawsuits. The Department later created an alternative procedure under which, when a tribe cannot negotiate a compact and a state asserts immunity, the Secretary may prescribe Class III gaming. See Class III Gaming Procedures, 64 Fed. Reg. 17535-02 (Apr. 12, 1999) (codified at 25 C.F.R. pt. 291 (2007)). At least one federal court, however, has held that the Secretary lacked authority to promulgate such regulations. See Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491, 493 (5th Cir.2007), petition for cert. filed sub nom. Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas v. Texas, 76 U.S.L.W. 3471 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2008) (No. 07-1109). Therefore, their validity remains questionable.