TRIBAL GAMING
decision, effectively legalizing sports betting, allowing states to regulate it across the U.S., which continues to set revenue records, reporting over US$16.96 billion in 2025. 1 In Murphy v. NCAA, the Supreme Court struck down the federal law that had banned states from authorizing sports betting. However, this decision did not affect sports betting alone. 2 The decision made clear that Congress cannot prohibit states from legalizing or regulating activities, including gambling, unless Congress itself allows it. Not only did the decision open the door to a new market, it also reaffirmed states’ general authority to decide whether and how to regulate other forms of gambling (casinos, online gaming, lotteries, etc.). The decision in Murphy gave states the green light to expand the gaming industry. In Florida, opponents of gambling expansion seized the opportunity to control the path the state would take – two notable forces of opposition being Disney and the Seminole Tribe of Florida, both of which opposed casino expansion for obvious reasons. This led those who were opposed to casino gaming expansion to back a constitutional amendment to Florida’s November 2018 ballot; a law that would prevent lawmakers from authorizing casino gaming expansion. This new law, Amendment 3, was passed by Florida voters, effectively removing the power to expand casino gaming from the state government and placing it in the hands of Florida voters. 3 Amendment 3 requires that any expansion of casino gambling be approved by a vote of its citizens. Opponents of casino expansion appeared satisfied until the Seminole Tribe, once aligned with their interests, exercised its rights under federal law. The Tribe subsequently secured not only its ability to participate in the sports betting industry but also exclusive rights to operate it. The Indian Regulatory Gaming Act IGRA provides the framework to enable states to regulate
Indian gaming in the United States. It divides gaming into three classes. Briefly, Class I, traditional Indian gaming, Class II consisting mainly of bingo and certain card games, and Class III which includes a wide range of categories, including “games of chance.” Class III gaming is the most closely regulated under IGRA as it effectively includes all other forms of gaming not captured in Classes I or II, and includes table games, slot machines, and sports betting. 4 Class I gaming on Indian lands is beyond the reach of both state and federal legislatures and States can regulate Class II gaming on Indian lands only if those games are banned in the state for everyone under all circumstances. This results in significant state involvement in Indian gaming under IGRA occuring mainly with Class III gaming. 5 IGRA permits tribes to offer Class III gaming on its lands “pursuant to, and in compliance with, a compact it has negotiated with the surrounding State.” 6 Tribal-state compacts are central to the scheme which Congress developed to balance the interests of the federal government, the states, and the tribes. 7 IGRA enables Tribal and state governments to achieve their distinct objectives in collaboration, and aims to deliver consistent and uniform rules for the regulation gaming activities. 8 “A compact typically prescribes rules for operating gaming, allocates law enforcement authority between the tribe and State, and provides remedies for breach of the agreement's terms.” 9 In order for a Tribal-state compact to take effect and be enforceable under state and Tribal law, it must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, with notice published in the Federal Register. 10 Under 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (d)(3)(C), the Secretary of the Interior is allotted 45 days to decide whether to approve, deny, or wait and not render a decision on a compact.
1 Shwetha Surendran, Sports betting hits record $16.96 billion in revenue in 2025 , ESPN, (Feb. 26, 2025), https://www.espn.com/espn/bet- ting/story/_/id/48045855/sports-betting-hits-record-1696-billion-revenue-2025. 2 Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association , 584 U.S. 453, 474 (2018). 3 Article X, § 30, of the Florida Constitution. 4 Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782 at 785 (2014); see also 25 U.S.C. § 2703(8). 5 27 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 93 (Originally published in 2008). 6 Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782 at 785; see also 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(C). 7 27 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 93 (Originally published in 2008). 8 Id 9 Bay Mills, 572 U.S. at 785. 10 W. Flagler Assocs., Ltd. v. Haaland, 71 F.4th 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2023), cert. denied, (2024).
IMGL MAGAZINE | JUNE 2026
PAGE 51
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker