USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 44
Filed: 12/22/2025
Pg: 14 of 39
residual powers as a sovereign”). This inherent and exclusive sovereign right to conduct and regulate gaming on their Indian lands has long been recognized. See California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians , 480 U.S. 202, 218–22 (1987); 25 U.S.C. § 2701(5). In 1988, Congress enacted IGRA to provide a comprehensive regulatory framework for tribal gaming and “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.” See Pub. L. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2467 (Oct. 17, 1988). IGRA has been incredibly successful on that front. 4 Through IGRA, many tribes have lifted entire generations out of poverty. Gaming revenue supports thousands of jobs in hundreds of communities, and provides critical funding to tribal, state, and local governments through revenue-sharing agreements, taxes, and economic stimulus. See Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty. , 572 U.S. 782, 810 (2014) (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (“[T]ribal gaming operations cannot be understood as mere profit-making ventures that are wholly separate from the Tribes’ core governmental functions”). For tribes, gaming is not a “commercial” endeavor, but an existential one. See Chicken Ranch Rancheria of
4 See, e.g. , NIGC, FY 2023 Gross Gaming Revenue Report 4–5 (July 2024), available at https://www.nigc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/GGR23_Final.pdf.
6
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs