Case 4:25-cv-14092-SDK-KGA ECF No. 29-1, PageID.503 Filed 01/26/26 Page 14 of 32
has remained unchanged since 1988. Under this regime, regulation of class III gaming on Indian lands is shared between three sovereign governments: tribes, states, and the federal government. Congress carefully crafted this comprehensive statutory regime to advance clearly articulated policy goals to: (1) promote tribal economic development, self- sufficiency, and strong tribal governments; (2) provide a statutory basis for regulation that protects players and ensures tribes’ ability to be the primary beneficiary of gaming on their lands; and (3) establish a federal regulatory agency to adopt federal standards and protect tribal gaming as a means of generating tribal revenue. 25 U.S.C. § 2702. Congress made it abundantly clear that tribes—not private entities—must benefit from any gaming conducted on their Indian lands. See id. §§ 2702(2), 2710(b)(2)(A). B. Michigan’s Cooperative Sports-Betting Regulatory Structure Working within IGRA’s comprehensive regulatory scheme, the Michigan Tribes and the State of Michigan have developed a model for gaming regulation that protects consumers, layers regulatory responsibility across tribal, state, and federal agencies, and provides significant revenues to tribal and state governments.
5
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs