Opinion ID: 1466405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Inapplicability of Section 2710

Text: To this point we have demonstrated in a number of different ways why Section 81 is inapplicable to the situation before us. But finally we soldier on to speak far more briefly to the substantially more attenuated possibility that the parties' agreement could somehow have violated Section 2710. As before, that inquiry begins by recourse to the plain statutory language. And by its express terms, Section 2710 pertains only to tribal ordinances or resolutionsnot to a tribe's contract with a third partyso that nothing in that statute impairs the validity of the Tribe-NGV agreement. Under Section 2710(b)(2)(A)(emphases added) the Chairman of the Gaming Commission: shall approve any tribal ordinance or resolution concerning the conduct, or regulation of class II gaming on the Indian lands within the tribe's jurisdiction if such ordinance or resolution provides that  (A) . . . . the Indian tribe will have the sole proprietary interest and responsibility for the conduct of any gaming activity . . . On appeal Harrah's argues that NGV's agreement with the Tribe violated that statute because the terms of the Lease allowed NGV to assume the dominant equity interest in the eventual gaming facility. That arrangement, it contends, is concomitant to NGV having a sole proprietary interest in the gaming facility. But Section 2710's plain language refutes that notion because Harrah's conclusion rests on a false premise. Here there was no tribal ordinance or resolution (note that the statute's implementing regulations likewise refer to gaming ordinance or resolution adopted by a tribe ) (see 25 C.F.R. § 522.1 (emphasis added)). That language simply does not speak to contracts entered into between a tribe and a third party (as contrasted with tribal legislation or regulations officially enacted by the tribe). That reading is further fortified by the sharp contrast between Section 2710 and Section 2705(a), a related statute that speaks of both tribal ordinances or resolutions and a specific type of contract that a tribe may enter into with a third party. [18] Thus the Tribe's agreement with NGV cannot be said to violate Section 2710 either. [19]