Court Opinion

ID: 9844355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:01:17.559139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:33.263969
License: Public Domain

JONES, Vice Chief Justice,
specially concurring:
I concur in the judgment and rationale of the court. I write separately, however, to remind the parties that today’s opinion, once again, does not resolve the federal question identified and discussed in the concurring opinion in Salt River Pimar-Maricopa Indian Community v. Hull, 190 Ariz. 97,105, 945 P.2d 818, 826 (1997). That discussion, though still valid, need not be repeated here.
The issue, briefly stated, is whether IGRA authorizes the tribe, via state compact, to conduct certain forms of Class III gaming on tribal land in spite of Arizona’s long-standing prohibition against such gaming on non-tribal land.
In even simpler terms, the issue is whether the state may approve, and whether the tribe may conduct, gaming activity which the state, by law, has otherwise declared illegal. Plaintiffs raised the issue, but the court holds that plaintiffs lack judicial standing to bring the action. Accordingly, the court must dismiss the case without reaching the controlling federal question.