Opinion ID: 2626204
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The State-Tribal Gaming Act and The Model Tribal Gaming Compact

Text: ¶ 12 In 1988, the Oklahoma Legislature authorized the Governor to negotiate and enter into cooperative agreements with federally recognized Indian tribes in furtherance of federal policy and state-tribal relations, subject to approval by a legislative Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations. [9] At that time, Oklahoma permitted pari-mutuel wagering on horse races. Our governors negotiated and entered into off-track wagering compacts with numerous Indian tribes. [10] The compacts are filed with the Oklahoma Secretary of the State as required by law. [11] 74 O.S.2001, § 1221(E). Two compacts with the Tribe in this case, filed with the Oklahoma Secretary of State on December 5, 1996, and March 28, 2001, allow that a tort claim against the Tribe may be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and also allow a tort claimant to file suit in state district court or Tribal court, at the claimant's option. [12] ¶ 13 In 2004, Oklahoma voters approved casino-style gambling at horse race tracks and in Indian country. The Oklahoma Legislature passed the State-Tribal Gaming Act and sent it to a vote of the people. [13] State Question No. 712, Legislative Referendum No. 335 (codified at 3A O.S.Supp.2004, §§ 261-281)(approved November 2, 2004). The Act sets out standards for the gaming machines and authorizes the Oklahoma Horse Racing Commission to implement and enforce the gaming statutes. 3A O.S.Supp. 2004, § 262. It provides for the regulation and oversight of Indian gaming in accordance with the model compact. Id. §§ 262(F) and 281, Part 5. It also fully sets forth the Model Tribal Gaming Compact, offering Indian tribes a nearly exclusive right to operate the covered gaming machines without substantial competition from nontribal entities. Id. § 281. ¶ 14 The model compact is offered, all or none, to the Indian tribes of Oklahoma, which if accepted, constitutes the gaming compact between this state and the accepting tribe for purposes of IGRA without any further action on behalf of the State of Oklahoma. Id. § 280. The model compact consists of Part 1 through Part 16. The model compact sets the fee to be paid to the state by the Indian tribe for the substantial exclusivity and, consistent with the goals of IGRA, special opportunities for tribal economic opportunity through gaming within the external boundaries of Oklahoma in respect to the covered games. [14] It defines the games that the tribes may offer to casino patrons as a means of generating revenue as authorized by IGRA, [15] places responsibility for operation and regulation of the casino with the tribe, [16] and places the oversight and monitoring of class III gaming with the Office of State Finance as the state compliance agency (SCA). [17] ¶ 15 The model compact recites the tribe's limited consent to suit for patron tort claims, mandates liability insurance coverage for the benefit of the public, prohibits the liability insurer from asserting tribal immunity, prescribes the procedure for casino patrons to claim damages, and expresses the tribe's consent to suit. [18] As to tort claims in Part 6(A), the compact requires the tribal enterprise [19] to maintain public liability insurance to cover tort claims in the minimum amounts set out in the compact or specified in the Governmental Tort Claims Act. [20] Part 6(A) prescribes a procedure for seeking damages for tort claims against the enterprise. That procedure begins with notice of the tort claim to the TCA or the tribal enterprise for investigation and approval or denial; and if the tribe or tribal agency denies the claim, the claimant is authorized to file a judicial proceeding to recover damages not to exceed the limits of the mandated public liability insurance coverage. Part 6(A) requires the enterprise to make pamphlets available to the casino patrons explaining the tort claim procedure and also explaining that the procedure is exclusive and that if it is not followed, the claim shall be forever barred. [21] ¶ 16 As to suits on tort claims, the tort claimant [22] is permitted to maintain a judicial proceeding for any cause arising from a tort claim subject to the limitations in Part 6(C), and the tribe [23] consents to suit subject to the monetary limits and procedural conditions in Part 6(A) and Part 6(C). The tribe also consents to suit against the enterprise in a court of competent jurisdiction, [24] the language at issue here. [25] In other words, the tribe consents to suit two times. The first time the tribe consents to suit without any mention of a court in Part 6(A)(2), and the second time it consents to suit against its enterprise with mention of a court of competent jurisdiction in Part 6(C). Even if we were to find that our state courts are not competent to entertain a suit against the tribe's enterprise in Part 6(C), the tribe has also consented to be sued in Part 6(A)(2). We find no part in the compact where the tribe consents to suit in tribal court only. ¶ 17 The model compact unmistakably gives the casino patron the right to recover damages on tort claims against the Indian tribe and against the tribe's enterprise. The compact imposes specific conditions and limits on the right: 1) it limits the amount of damages for which the tribe and/or the enterprise will be liable up to the monetary limits of Oklahoma's governmental tort claims law, 2) it restricts enforcement of a damages award to the liability insurance and prohibits the insurer from asserting tribal immunity, 3) it prescribes special notice-of-claim procedures for recovery of damages parallel to the state governmental tort claims statutory procedure, 4) it authorizes a judicial remedy to recover tort damages, and 5) it provides the tribe's clear and express consent to suit for damages. The compact does not, however, restrict the casino patron to tort damages under tribal law nor does it limit the casino patron to suit against the tribe or its enterprise in tribal court. ¶ 18 Although there is no language in the model compact making tribal law or tribal courts the exclusive protection for a wrongfully injured casino patron, the Tribe takes the position that Part 9 limits its consent to suit to the tribal courts only. Part 9 reads: This compact shall not alter tribal, federal or state civil adjudicatory or criminal jurisdiction. Part 9 expresses intent not to alter whatever court has adjudicatory jurisdiction, but it does nothing to define a court of competent jurisdiction. [26] ¶ 19 The model compact governs Indian-country gaming activities by consent of the Indian tribe. It acknowledges that the tribe is a federally recognized tribal government possessing sovereign powers and the rights of self-government, [27] that the state and the tribe maintain a government-to-government relationship, and that this Compact will help foster mutual respect and understanding among Indians and non-Indians. [28] Nothing in the compact provides that patron tort claims are to be adjudicated only in tribal court. Had that been the intent of the tribes and the state, the simple words in tribal court only could have been included in the compact. ¶ 20 We have carefully perused the model compact and studied the provisions in Part 6 pertaining to a casino patron's tort claim against the tribe. We conclude that the Tribe clearly and unequivocally consented to be sued for tort damages by a casino patron, whether suit be brought in state court, federal court, or tribal court.