Opinion ID: 1354957
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Balancing Approach to State Regulation of Bingo Games Conducted on Indian Country

Text: Some cases that discuss the issue of state regulation of bingo games try to distinguish between the civil regulatory or criminal prohibitory nature of bingo laws [67] in order to determine whether the state may assume jurisdiction. We find the distinction unpersuasive because it provides no clear distinction between regulatory and prohibitory as applied to bingo. Most regulations may be interpreted as being in both categories. Because this case involves an overlapping of state, Indian and federal interests, we resort to a balancing approach for resolution of the conflict. [68] First we ask: Are state regulations of bingo preempted by federal law since there are no federal treaties, statutes, regulations or policies concerning the conduct of bingo games on tribal lands? Here we must answer in the negative. Next we ask: Does state regulation of tribal bingo games conducted in Indian Country constitute per se an infringement upon Indian self-government? Here we are unable to ascertain that bingo is a traditional tribal activity or one involving essential tribal functions, and hence we must again give a negative answer. The main (and perhaps only) purpose of the enterprise is to generate funds for the Tribes. We do recognize that the Tribes have a legitimate interest in self-government and economic development. [69] We also recognize that the U.S. Supreme Court has extended state laws to tribal commercial activities affecting substantial numbers of non-Indians, where such non-Indian citizens evade state laws by benefiting from an exclusively Indian exemption. [70] Our analysis of extant U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence leads us to conclude that the earlier doctrine of Indian wardship, as conceptually refined, continues to provide Indians with a measure of autonomy and self-determination within the practical confines and realities of modern American life. American Indians enjoy many rights as citizens, both of the United States and of the States in which they reside. [71] Efforts at economic development and tribal self-government are encouraged, but not at the expense of the states in which they reside and in disregard of those laws that protect both Indian and non-Indian citizens. [72] Federal interest in protecting the Indians from feared state hostility continues to manifest itself in the presence of many statutory exemptions. That these exemptions will not be extended to non-Indians, especially where they are potentially injurious to state interests, is not inconsistent with the federal government's guardianship philosophy. Bearing in mind that many Indian tribes are now striding toward greater economic stability by experimenting with new forms of revenue-raising, recent case law recognizes that states do have interests which must be considered in clarifying undecided areas of law. No one would deny that states have a legitimate interest in preventing infiltration of organized crime and in protecting the State's overall economy and tax base. [73] State statutes, such as Oklahoma's bingo law, which fashion norms for conduct [74] throughout the state, have a beneficial impact on all citizens, both Indian and non-Indian. They do regulate activities which, if left unguarded, might encourage organized crime and siphon off needed state revenues that provide resources for services utilized by the Indians themselves.