Case 3:25-cv-06162-JSC Document 71 Filed 11/10/25 Page 7 of 13
within a single State,” gambling is legal in the state, and “the bet or wager does not violate any
1
provision of” four statutes, one of which is IGRA. 31 U.S.C. § 5362(10)(B). Using nearly identical
2
language, the UIGEA exempts “intratribal transactions” where the “bet or wager is initiated or
3
otherwise made exclusively … within the Indian lands” of tribes that have authorized gaming in
4
accordance with IGRA. 31 U.S.C. § 5362(10)(C). Finally, “the term ‘bet or wager’ does not
5
include any transaction conducted on or subject to the rules of a registered entity or exempt board
6
of trade under the Commodity Exchange Act. ” 31 U.S.C. § 5362(1)(E)(ii) (cleaned up).
7
C. Likelihood of Success
8
Plaintiffs contend Defendants are offering Class III gaming in violation of IGRA. As
9
relevant here, IGRA provides district courts with jurisdiction over:
10
11
(ii) any cause of action initiated by a State or Indian tribe to enjoin a class III gaming activity located on Indian lands and conducted in violation of any Tribal-State compact entered into under paragraph (3) that is in effect, and (iii) any cause of action initiated by the Secretary to enforce the procedures prescribed under subparagraph (B)(vii).
12
13
14
25 U.S.C. §§ 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii), (iii). So, the Court has jurisdiction over the IGRA claim only if
15
Plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin “class III gaming activity located on Indian lands and conducted in
16
violation of any Tribal- State compact” that is in effect. 25 U.S.C. §§ 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii). Plaintiffs
17
have not shown a likelihood of success on this jurisdictional requirement.
18
Although Plaintiff Picayune Rancheria ’s compact “remains in effect today,” (Dkt. No. 35 -2
19
¶¶ 7 – 10), Plaintiffs Blue Lake and Chicken Ranch do not have a “Tribal State compact … that is
20
in effect” because the Secretary of the Interior issued procedures governing Class III gaming
21
“pursuant to IGRA’s remedial scheme,” a scheme triggered by the absence of a compact. (Dkt.
22
No. 35-5 ¶ 23; Dkt. No. 35-6 ¶ 26); see 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B) (outlining the remedial
23
scheme). So, Blue Lake and Chicken Ranch conduct Class III gaming pursuant to secretarial
24
procedures, rather than a Tribal-State compact. The Court nonetheless has jurisdiction to entertain
25
claims brought for violations of secretarial procedures because the procedures are “functionally
26
equivalent” to compacts under IGRA. Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior , 959
27
F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2020).
28
7
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs