Opinion ID: 6934752
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court’s Authority to Enter an Injunction

Text: The State argues that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cannot support the district court’s injunction because the Bands are not “persons” for purposes of that section. We agree with the Sycuan Band, however, that there is no need for us to reach that question. 1 The Bands alleged jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, and 1362, and the State did not contest those bases of jurisdiction. Section 1331 is enough; this case clearly arises under federal law, be it IGRA or the federal common law of Indian affairs that allocates jurisdiction among the federal government, the tribes, and the states. See National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe, 471 U.S. 845, 850-53, 105 S.Ct. 2447, 2450-52, 85 L.Ed.2d 818 (1985). The State attacks the standing of the tribe to seek an injunction that, among other things, enjoins the prosecution of third parties. The State candidly admits, however, that this argument was not raised in the district court. The argument is therefore waived and we will not entertain it unless the defect in standing deprives us of jurisdiction for lack of a case or controversy. See Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 257, 73 S.Ct. 1031, 1035, 97 L.Ed. 1586 (1953) (rule denying standing to raise another’s rights is “only a rule of practice,” which may be dispensed with in appropriate cases). We have no doubt that we have before us a case and controversy between the Bands and the state authorities. The State’s prosecutions, although directed immediately at the individuals conducting the tribal gaming operation, are aimed at stopping the Bands’ machine gaming in its tracks. The Bands here are in no different position from that of the Mescalero Tribe in New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324, 103 S.Ct. 2378, 76 L.Ed.2d 611 (1983). In that case, the Tribe brought an action against New Mexico to enjoin enforcement of the State’s game laws against non-Indian hunters and fishers on the Tribe’s reservation. Id. at 329-30, 103 S.Ct. at 2383-84. The lower court issued the injunction and the Supreme Court upheld it. Id. at 343, 103 S.Ct. at 2391. We therefore see no constitutional or other jurisdictional problem in enforcing the district court’s injunction in this case. On the merits, the district court had strong authority for its conclusion that the State lacked jurisdiction to enforce its criminal laws against electronic machine gambling. IGRA extends state laws punishing certain types of gambling into Indian country, 18 U.S.C. § 1166(a), (b), (c), but it also contains a highly explicit limitation on jurisdiction to enforce those laws: The United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions of violations of State gambling laws that are made applicable under this section to Indian country, unless an Indian tribe pursuant to a Tribal-State compact ... has consented to the transfer to the State of criminal jurisdiction with respect to the gambling on the lands of the Indian tribe. 18 U.S.C. § 1166(d). The Bands have not consented to the transfer of criminal jurisdiction to the State. As far as IGRA is concerned, therefore, the State had no authority to prosecute the Bands’ employees for conducting the Bands’ gaming. Having correctly so concluded, the district court was well within its equitable power to enjoin the prosecutions, see, e.g., Mescalero Apache Tribe, supra, unless some federal statute or deci-sional law affirmatively bars the injunction. We discuss those questions below, but first we deal with a final substantive contention of the State.