Case 2:25-cv-00978-APG-BNW Document 75 Filed 09/15/25 Page 17 of 20
Mazurie , 419 U.S. 544, 557 (1975)). Additionally, “the Constitution grants Congress broad
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
general powers to legislate in respect to Indian tribes,” and those powers are “constantly described
as plenary and exclusive.” United States v. Lara , 541 U.S. 193, 200 (2004). “And yet [Indian
tribes] remain ‘separate sovereigns pre-existing the Constitution.’” Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian
Cmty. , 572 U.S. 782, 788 (2014) (quoting Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez , 436 U.S. 49, 56
(1978)). “A key goal of the Federal Government is to render tribes more self-sufficient, and better
positioned to fund their own sovereign functions, rather than relying on federal funding.” Id. at
810 (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (citing 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1)).
Congress has declared its commitment to supporting Tribal self-determination and self-
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
governance, stating:
The Congress declares its commitment to the maintenance of the Federal Government’s unique and continuing relationship with, and responsibility to, individual Indian tribes and to the Indian people as a whole through the establishment of a meaningful Indian self- determination policy … [and] to supporting and assisting Indian tribes in the development of strong and stable tribal governments, capable of administering quality programs and developing the economies of their respective communities.
25 U.S.C. § 5302(b). The Executive Branch has consistently affirmed this policy. See e.g. , Exec.
Order No. 13175, § 2(c), 65 Fed. Reg. 67,249, 67,249 (Nov. 6, 2000); Exec. Order No. 13647, §
1(a), 78 Fed. Reg. 39,539, 39,539 (June 26, 2013).
In Cabazon , the Supreme Court recognized the importance of “the congressional goal of
Indian self-government, including its overriding goal of encouraging tribal self-sufficiency and
economic development[,]” and noted that federal agencies “ha[ve] sought to implement these
policies by promoting tribal bingo enterprises.” 480 U.S. at 216–17 (internal quotations omitted).
It also acknowledged that tribal casinos often provide “the sole source of revenues for the
operation of the tribal governments and the provision of tribal services” and that, in some
instances, tribal casinos “are the major sources of employment on the reservations.” Id. at 218–19.
Following Cabazon , Congress declared in IGRA that “[t]he purpose of [IGRA] is … to provide a
statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal
economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments ….” 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1).
- 17 -
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs