Opinion ID: 733385
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State law governs validity of compact

Text: 58 Another, but very closely related, issue about which the parties disagree is whether federal law or state law, or both, govern the validity of a compact. We agree with the courts in Willis, 850 F.Supp. at 532, and Kickapoo Tribe, 827 F.Supp. at 45-46 that determining the validity of a compact necessitates an interpretation of both federal and state law. 59 IGRA is a federal statute, the interpretation of which presents a federal question suitable for determination by a federal court. Thus, we indisputably have the power to determine whether a Tribal-State compact is valid. See West Virginia ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, 341 U.S. 22, 28, 71 S.Ct. 557, 560, 95 L.Ed. 713 (1951) (Just as this Court has power to settle disputes between States where there is no compact, it must have final power to pass upon the meaning and validity of compacts.). However, that does not mean that state law plays no role at all in the statute. 60 As we have held, IGRA imposes two requirements for a compact to authorize class III gaming--the compact must be validly entered into by the state and the tribe, and it must be in effect pursuant to Secretarial approval. The plain language of IGRA makes it clear that Secretarial approval and publication places a compact into effect. However, IGRA says nothing specific about how we determine whether a state and tribe have entered into a valid compact. State law must determine whether a state has validly bound itself to a compact. See Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 493 & n. 39, 99 S.Ct. 740, 757 & n. 39, 58 L.Ed.2d 740 (1979) (holding that section 6 of Pub.L. 280 (now codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1324), authorizing the people of any State to amend, where necessary, their State constitution or existing statutes to effect the transfer of civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian lands to the state, required the application of state law to the procedural amendment requirement). 14 We agree with the district court that IGRA's very silence on this point supports the view that Congress intended that state law determine the procedure for executing valid gaming compacts. Pueblo of Santa Ana, 932 F.Supp. at 1294. Thus, the state and Tribe must be validly bound under state law.