Case: 25-7504, 01/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 30 of 47
ing any Federal or State law or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, per- mitting, or regulating gambling within the United States.” 31 U.S.C. § 5361(b). Another section of the statute, specifically relating to its ap- plication on Indian lands, underscores the point: “No provision of this section shall be construed as altering, superseding, or otherwise affect- ing the application of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.” Id. § 5365(b)(3). These provisions are pellucid, and they are dispositive. That UIGEA does not legalize gambling that IGRA prohibits should come as no surprise, because UIGEA was enacted as a tool to enforce—rather than displace—existing prohibitions. As the statute it- self explains, UIGEA created “[n]ew mechanisms for enforcing [existing] gambling laws on the Internet,” because “traditional law enforcement mechanisms [were] often inadequate for enforcing gambling prohibi- tions.” 31 U.S.C. § 5361(a)(4); see id. § 5365 (specifying civil remedies); Iipay , 898 F.3d at 960 (“In effect, the UIGEA prevents using the internet to circumvent existing state and federal gambling laws . . . .”). But whether the mechanisms established by UIGEA are available to ensure compliance with IGRA’s prohibition does not affect the prohibition itself .
22
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs