Case: 3:25-cv-00698-wmc Document #: 56-1 Filed: 01/06/26 Page 6 of 13
in violation of any Tribal-State compact entered into under paragraph (3) that is in effect.”). 3 Thus, IGRA expressly “permits a suit by either the tribe or a state to enjoin illegal class III gaming.” Stockbridge-Munsee Cmty. v. Wisconsin , 922 F.3d 818, 822 (7th Cir. 2019); see also S. Rep. 100-446, 18 (Aug. 3, 1988) (explaining Congress’s understanding that IGRA “[g]rants United States district courts jurisdiction over actions by … a tribe or state to enjoin illegal gaming on Indian lands.”); cf. Cayuga Nation v. New York State Gaming Comm’n , 2025 WL 2161290, at *2–8 (N.D.N.Y. July 30, 2025) (finding that court may have equitable jurisdiction to hear tribe’s claim that state illegally operated and regulated lottery games on tribal lands in violation of IGRA when tribe did not have a gaming compact, despite determining IGRA did not provide the tribe with a private right of action to pursue such violations). A gaming activity that occurs outside the scope of or exceeds what is authorized by a tribe’s compact necessarily violates that compact. Tribes have successfully sued to prevent illegal class III gaming on their lands precisely because of the lack of any compact provision allowing the gaming. See Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Idaho , 842 F. Supp. 1268, 1282 (D. Idaho 1994) (finding in favor of tribe on claim that Idaho’s state lottery operated illegally on tribal lands when not authorized by compact), aff’d, 51 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 1995). 4 The National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”) has likewise 3 If there is any ambiguity as to tribes’ authority to enjoin class III gaming conducted on their tribal lands in violation of IGRA (there is not), the well-established canons of Indian construction require that this Court interpret any ambiguity to the benefit of the Nation. See, e.g. , Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians , 471 U.S. 759, 766 (1985) (“[S]tatutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit ….”). 4 At least one federal court declined to follow the Coeur d’Alene decision’s holding that a tribe could bring suit to bar a state from offering lotteries on its Indian lands in violation of IGRA. See Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakama Indian Nation v. Lowry , 968 F. Supp. 531, 533– 35 (E.D. Wash. 1996), vacated on other grounds, Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakama
6
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs