Opinion ID: 848685
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: background: federal law regarding tribal gaming

Text: Knowledge of the underlying federal law is necessary to understand the factual posture of this case. In California v. Cabazon, 480 U.S. 202, 207, 107 S.Ct. 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 244 (1987), the United States Supreme Court held that state laws may only be applied to tribal lands if Congress has expressly so provided. The Court held that because Congress had not provided for the regulation of tribal gaming, a state could only prohibit gaming on tribal lands if the state completely prohibited all gaming within its borders. In response to Cabazon, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 USC 2701 et seq., which divides gaming activities into three classes. Class I gaming consists of social games solely for prizes of minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming engaged in by individuals as a part of, or in connection with, tribal ceremonies or celebrations. 25 USC 2703(6). Class II gaming includes bingo and card games (but not banking card games) that are played in conformance with state laws and regulations regarding hours of operation and limitations on wagers or pot sizes. 25 USC 2703(7). Class III gaming includes all other forms of gambling, including casino gaming. 25 USC 2703(8). At issue in this case is class III gaming. Under IGRA, tribes may engage in class III gaming only pursuant to a tribal-state compact that is approved by the Secretary of the Interior. 25 USC 2710(d) provides, in relevant part: (1) Class III gaming activities shall be lawful on Indian lands only if such activities are     (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 under paragraph (3) that is in effect.    (3) (A) Any Indian tribe having jurisdiction over the Indian lands upon which a class III gaming activity is being conducted, or is to be conducted, shall request the State in which such lands are located to enter into negotiations for the purpose of entering into a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of gaming activities. Upon receiving such a request, the State shall negotiate with the Indian tribe in good faith to enter into such a compact.[ [1] ]    (C) Any Tribal-State compact negotiated under subparagraph (A) may include provisions relating to  (i) the application of the criminal and civil laws and regulations of the Indian tribe or the State that are directly related to, and necessary for, the licensing and regulation of such activity; (ii) the allocation of criminal and civil jurisdiction between the State and the Indian tribe necessary for the enforcement of such laws and regulations; (iii) the assessment by the State of such activities in such amounts as are necessary to defray the costs of regulating such activity; (iv) taxation by the Indian tribe of such activity in amounts comparable to amounts assessed by the State for comparable activities; (v) remedies for breach of contract; (vi) standards for the operation of such activity and maintenance of the gaming facility, including licensing; and (vii) any other subjects that are directly related to the operation of gaming activities.    (5) Nothing in this subsection shall impair the right of an Indian tribe to regulate class III gaming on its Indian lands concurrently with the State, except to the extent that such regulation is inconsistent with, or less stringent than, the State laws and regulations made applicable by any Tribal-State compact entered into by the Indian tribe under paragraph (3) that is in effect. Through § 2710(d), Congress expressly provided for tribal-state negotiations regarding class III gaming. Through this compacting process, the tribes and the states may agree to the terms governing such gaming.