ARGUMENT Indian tribes are sovereign nations with primary jurisdiction over their lands and the activities occurring on their lands. In accordance with this principle, both the United States Supreme Court and Congress have recognized tribes’ inherent and exclusive sovereign right to conduct and regulate gaming on their Indian lands. California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians , 480 U.S. 202 (1987); 25 U.S.C. § 2702. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) was enacted to provide a comprehensive federal regulatory framework for Indian gaming, including providing a mechanism for tribes and states to negotiate compacts governing the operation of Class III games, such as sports betting, subject to federal approval. IGRA created a regulatory framework for tribal gaming intended to balance state, federal, and tribal interests. Amador County v. Salazar , 640 F3d 373, 376 (D.C. Cir. 2011); Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. California , 42 F.4th 1024, 1031 (9th Cir. 2022). Congress recognized that each state’s public policy for gaming law itself was the product of each state’s own deliberation over many years, such that tribes are only entitled to compacts, and states are only required to include in compacts, those games that the state allows. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d). Some states have negotiated compacts to allow for tribes to be the exclusive operators of certain types of gaming. Artichoke Joe’s v. Norton , 353 F.3d 712, 718 (9th Cir. 2003) This delicate balance of federal, tribal, and state
1
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs