Opinion ID: 2844076
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rights-Creating Language

Text: We begin by looking to the text of § 1166(a) for rights-creating language. Section 1166(a) states: Subject to subsection (c), for purposes of Federal law, all State laws pertaining to the licensing, regulation, or prohibition of gambling, including but not limited to criminal sanctions applicable thereto, shall apply in Indian country in the same manner and to the same extent as such laws apply elsewhere in the State. 25 The plain language of § 1166(a) has the effect of incorporating state laws pertaining to the licensing, regulation, or prohibition of gambling into federal law such that those state laws extend into Indian country, where they did not previously reach. Congress clearly expressed that the laws that were incorporated included, but were not limited to, state criminal laws. Although § 1166(a) extends the reach of state law, it does not correspondingly extend a state’s power to enforce state law in Indian country because § 1166 does not contain rights-creating language. The Supreme Court has held that statutes decreeing that “[n]o person . . . shall . . . be subjected to discrimination, ” Cannon, 441 U.S. at 681, 690 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000d), and that “no person shall be denied the right to vote,” Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 555-57 (1969) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, (current version at 52 U.S.C. § 10304(a))), contained rights-creating language. See also Shotz, 344 F.3d at 1167 (concluding that a statute stating that “[n]o person 25 Subsection (c) specifies that § 1166 applies only to class III gaming conducted outside a tribal-state compact. 33 Case: 14-12004 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 34 of 42 shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter” contained rights-creating language (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a)). In contrast, a statute that merely describes how the federal government will effectuate or enforce rights does not contain rightscreating language. See Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 288-89 (holding that a statute, which did not focus on “the individuals who will ultimately benefit from [its] protection” and instead described how rights created in other provisions will be effectuated, did not contain rights-creating language). Section 1166(a) contains no language conferring rights on states or any other potential plaintiff who would have a claim under state law. Unlike statutes that contain rights-creating language, § 1166 does not identify a class of persons or entities protected under the statute. Although § 1166(a) states that “all State laws . . . shall apply in Indian country in the same manner . . . as such laws apply elsewhere in the State,” this language does not indicate that Congress intended the states to be beneficiaries under the statute. The plain language shows that the focus of § 1166(a) is on “State laws,” not the states themselves. Where, as here, the focus of a statute is “removed from the individuals who will ultimately benefit from [its] protection,” the statute does not contain rights-creating language. See Sandoval, 532 U.S at 289. 34 Case: 14-12004 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 35 of 42