Case 4:25-cv-14092-SDK-KGA ECF No. 29-1, PageID.500 Filed 01/26/26 Page 11 of 32
Supreme Court and Congress, this tribal jurisdiction extends to gaming. See California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians , 480 U.S. 202, 216–22 (1987); 25 U.S.C. § 2701(5). When Congress adopted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), it sought to “promot[e] tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments.” 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1). IGRA has been incredibly successful on that front. 2 Since IGRA’s passage in 1988, tribes across the United States have lifted entire generations out of poverty through tribal gaming. Gaming revenue supports thousands of jobs in hundreds of communities and tribal government programs. It also provides critical funding to state and local governments through revenue-sharing agreements, tax revenue, and economic stimulus. For many tribal governments, gaming is not merely a “commercial” endeavor; rather, it is essential to their self-determination. See Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. California , 42 F.4th 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2022) (“Class III gaming is not only a source of substantial revenue for tribes, but the lifeblood on which many tribes have come to rely .” (emphasis added)).
2 See, e.g. , National Indian Gaming Commission, FY 2023 Gross Gaming Revenue Report 4–5 (July 2024), available at https://www.nigc.gov/wp- content/uploads/2025/02/GGR23_Final.pdf.
2
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs