Opinion ID: 1160930
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Primacy of Federal Authority Over Indian Gambling

Text: As the aboriginal possessors of America, Indian tribes have a unique and sovereign relationship with both the federal government and the states within which they are located. Tribal sovereignty and the federal power over Indian relations greatly limit the power of states to regulate Indian tribes and activities on tribal lands without congressional authorization. `Indian relations [are] the exclusive province of federal law.' ( Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida (1996) 517 U.S. 44, 60, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252.) From the earliest days of our nation, states have lacked any general sovereign power over Indian tribes and tribal lands. As Chief Justice John Marshall said in a case rejecting the State of Georgia's attempt to apply its criminal laws within Cherokee tribal lands: The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter, but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of congress. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States. ( Worcester v. Georgia (1832) 31 U.S. (6 Peters) 515, 561, 8 L.Ed. 483.) As the United States Supreme Court has explained, there are two independent but related barriers to a state's attempt to assert its power over activities on Indian lands. ( White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker (1980) 448 U.S. 136, 142-145, 100 S.Ct. 2578, 65 L.Ed.2d 665.) One is the sovereign status of Indian tribes; the other is the federal Constitution's grant of power to Congress over Indian affairs. ( Ibid. ) These barriers are not entirely fixed, however; Congress may also delegate to the states some of its power over Indian affairs by authorizing the application of state law to Indian affairs. For example, in title 18 United States Code section 1162, enacted in 1953, Congress granted to certain states (including California) jurisdiction over criminal offenses in Indian country, and it extended state criminal law to Indian country. Subsequently, California asserted that this grant of criminal jurisdiction authorized it to apply state gambling laws to Indian country. In California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (1987) 480 U.S. 202, 107 S.Ct. 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 244, the United States Supreme Court rejected California's argument that in enacting title 18 United States Code section 1162 Congress had intended to extend all state gambling laws to Indian country. Rather, the high court held that under section 1162 only those state laws that entirely prohibited a particular form of gambling (criminal/prohibitory laws) could be applied to Indian country, and not those state laws that only restricted but did not prohibit a form of gambling (civil/regulatory laws). (480 U.S. at p. 209, 107 S.Ct. 1083.) In the wake of that decision, Congress in 1988 enacted a detailed statutory scheme, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), to regulate gambling on tribal lands. (Pub.L. No. 100-97 (Oct. 17, 1988) 102 Stat. 2467, codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1166-1168 and 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721.) In the structure and scope of IGRA, which comprehensively addresses all forms of gambling on Indian lands, Congress made clear its intent that IGRA preempt the field of regulation of Indian gambling. Congress also made clear this intent to preclude state jurisdiction over Indian gambling in the statute's legislative history: [IGRA] is intended to expressly preempt the field in the governance of gaming activities on Indian lands. (Sen. Rep. No. 100-446, 2d Sess., p. 6 (1988) reprinted at 1988 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, p. 3076.) [U]nless a tribe affirmatively elects to have State laws and State jurisdiction extend to tribal lands, the Congress will not unilaterally impose or allow State jurisdiction on Indian lands for the regulation of Indian gaming activities. ( Id, 1988 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News, at p. 3075, italics added.) IGRA divides all forms of gambling into three classes. The forms of gambling regulated by Proposition 5 and at issue here are so-called class III gaming activities. (25 U.S.C. § 2703.) Section 2710(d)(1) of title 25 United States Code (hereafter section 2710(d)(1)) as a matter of federal law, conditionally authorizes tribes to engage in class III gaming activities that the state permits someone else to engage in. IGRA establishes three conditions for authorization: Class III gaming activities shall be lawful on Indian lands only if such activities are[¶] (A) authorized by an ordinance or resolution adopted by the 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. ( Ibid ) The second condition for authorization (condition (B)) is essentially the distinction that California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, supra, 480 U.S. 202, 107 S.Ct. 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 244, drew between gambling activities a state absolutely prohibits, and those it regulates or restricts but does not prohibit. In the words of IGRA: Indian tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands if the gaming activity is not specifically prohibited by Federal law and is conducted within a State which does not, as a matter of criminal law and public policy, prohibit such gaming activity. (25 U.S.C. § 2701(5), italics added.) Section 2710(d) further provides a detailed mechanism by which a tribe may negotiate and enter into a tribal/state gambling compact, and by which the Secretary of the Interior may authorize tribal gambling in the absence of a tribal/state gambling compact if a state refuses to enter into such a compact. Nothing in those provisions suggests that a state may use the process of negotiating and entering into compacts to prohibit a tribe from engaging in class III gaming activities that the state permits someone else to engage in. IGRA also removed the power of states, recognized in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, supra, 480 U.S. 202, 107 S.Ct. 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 244, to apply to Indian lands those state laws absolutely prohibiting a particular form of gambling. Instead, IGRA included a new federal criminal statute, codified at 18 United States Code section 1166, criminalizing gambling in Indian country that is not authorized by IGRA. The federal statute adopts for purposes of Federal law state gambling laws, but the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute these offenses. ( Ibid. ) Thus, if a state authorizes class III gaming activities by anyone, federal law authorizes a tribe to engage in those same activities once the tribe adopts an Indian gambling ordinance approved by the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission and enters into a compact with the state. If the state fails or refuses to reach an agreement with the tribe, the Secretary of the Interior may authorize tribal gambling. Several crucial points emerge from this review of IGRA. First, authorization or prohibition of Indian gambling is exclusively a matter of paramount federal law. Where Indian gambling is authorized, it is authorized by operation of federal law. Where Indian gambling is prohibited, it is prohibited by operation of federal law. Although a state's gambling law may shape the contours of the federal authorization, a state may not directly prohibit Indian gambling as such. A state may not criminalize or prosecute any tribal gambling activities, even for forms of gambling that the state prohibits to everyone. Only the federal government may prosecute gambling that IGRA does not authorize. Nor can a state on its own authorize Indians to engage in gambling, even gambling that it permits everyone else to engage in. For example, even if slot machines were legal everywhere else in California, IGRA would still prohibit their use on a reservation absent an approved tribal ordinance and a tribal/state compact. Even the power of a state to shape the contours of federal authorization is extremely limited. Once a state permits even a single entity (including the state itself) to engage in a class III gaming activity, federal law authorizes all tribes within the state to engage in that form of gambling (once they adopt an approved tribal ordinance and either enter into a compact or, if the state refuses to enter into a compact, receive authorization from the Secretary of the Interior).