Case 3:25-cv-02016-VDO Document 56-1 Filed 01/16/26 Page 5 of 29
approve these agreements in order for them to take effect, and for lawful class III gaming to occur on tribal lands. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8). These core provisions have 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. Federal courts have described IGRA’s regulatory regime as so comprehensive that it preempts state laws regulating gaming on Indian lands. Cayuga Nation v. Tanner , 6 F.4th 361, 377 (2d Cir. 2021) (“As we and our sister circuits have held, IGRA preempts all state and local legislation and regulation relating to gambling conducted on ‘Indian lands,’ as defined in that statute.”); see also Gaming Corp. of America v. Dorsey & Whitney , 88 F.3d 536, 544 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding that IGRA preempts state gaming laws, and noting that states must negotiate agreements with tribes to have any involvement in class III gaming regulation). Congress carefully crafted this comprehensive statutory regime to advance clearly articulated policy goals to: (1) “promot[e] tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments”; (2) provide a statutory basis for regulation that protects players and tribes’ ability to be the primary beneficiary of gaming on their lands; and (3) create 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 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(2)(A), (d)(2)(A). For many tribal governments, gaming is not merely a “commercial” endeavor; rather, it is essential to their self-determination. See Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me- Wuk Indians v. California , 42 F.4th 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2022) (“Class III gaming is not only a
5
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs