TRIBAL GAMING
Introduction: IGRA, the promise of Tribal economic development Nearly 40 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the right of federally recognized Tribes to conduct gaming on their own lands. 1 Some states strongly opposed this outcome, desiring complete regulatory control over gaming within their borders. In 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) as a sort of compromise that both codified Tribes’ right to engage in gaming while also returning some regulatory control to the states. IGRA only governs gaming that takes place on Indian lands, and Tribes may only engage in Class III, or casino-style, gaming (including sports betting) by negotiating compacts with states. An IGRA compact must also be approved by the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) before taking effect. To ensure IGRA could fulfill its purpose of “promoting Tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong Tribal governments,” 2 Congress mandated that states negotiate compacts with Tribes in good faith. IGRA further requires that Tribes are the primary beneficiaries of their gaming operations. Additionally, IGRA prohibits states from imposing taxes or fees on Tribal gaming, though courts have upheld revenue-sharing payments to states under IGRA compacts as long as the state offers something of significant value in return, such as a negotiated, exclusive right of the Tribe to conduct a particular type of gaming. 3
address any other matters that are “directly related to” gaming (sometimes referred to as IGRA’s “catchall” provision).
The Seminole Tribe of Florida – leaders in Tribal gaming The Seminole Tribe of Florida (the Tribe or Seminole) has long been on the cutting edge of Indian gaming, from its bingo operations in the 1970s to online sports betting today. While the Tribe and the State of Florida (the State) now have a groundbreaking IGRA compact in place, this relationship took many decades to build. The first attempt at negotiating a compact led to a 1991 lawsuit over the State’s refusal to negotiate in good faith, as required by IGRA. However, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress lacked the authority to abrogate state Eleventh Amendment immunity, rendering IGRA’s good-faith mandate unenforceable against the State. 5 Years of further litigation and negotiations ensued, all under the direction of Jim Shore, the Tribe’s General Counsel, until the Tribe and State at last agreed to a compact in 2010. 6 Among other things, this agreement authorized the Tribe’s exclusive right to conduct banked card games, such as blackjack, in exchange for an unprecedented US$1 billion in shared revenue with the State over the first five years. However, shortly after the compact was approved, the State began allowing state- licensed cardrooms to offer a form of card game that the Tribe argued violated its exclusive right to offer banked card games. In 2016, a Florida federal court agreed that these so-called “designated player games” were banked card games as defined in the compact. 7 When the State still failed to halt the activity, the Tribe exercised its right to suspend revenue sharing payments to the State. Finally, in 2021, the Tribe and State emerged from another round of lengthy negotiations with a new gaming compact
IGRA compacts can authorize Tribes to engage in any type of Class III gaming that is permitted, in some form, under state law. 4 While IGRA limits the scope of compact terms to certain topics, there is still great flexibility, including the ability of Tribes and states to allocate regulatory jurisdiction over gaming between their respective authorities, and to 1 California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians , 480 U.S. 202 (1987) 2 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1). 3 See Rincon Band of Luiseño Mission Indians v. Schwarzenegger , 602 F.3d 1019, 1033 (9th Cir. 2010). 4 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(B). 5 Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida , 517 U.S. 44, 72–73 (1996).
6 The Tribe and Florida Governor Charlie Crist had agreed to a compact in 2007 that was deemed approved by Interior, but the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the Governor lacked the authority to enter into a compact without authorization by the Florida Legislature. Fla. House of Repre- sentatives v. Crist , 999 So.2d 601 (Fla. 2008). 7 Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida , 219 F. Supp. 3d 1177, 1188 (N.D. Fla. 2016).
PAGE 7
IMGL MAGAZINE | MARCH 2025
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker