Case: 25-7187, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 75.1, Page 12 of 43
siphon gaming revenues away from tribes over such tribes’ objections. Congress did no such thing. When Congress adopted IGRA, it sought to “promot[e] tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments.” 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1). IGRA has been incredibly successful on that front. 3 Since IGRA’s passage in 1988, tribes across the United States have lifted entire generations out of poverty through tribal gaming. 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 just a commercial endeavor but an existential one. Tribes have primary jurisdiction over their lands and activities occurring thereon. Tribes, like states, also have a strong sovereign interest in determining
3 See, e.g. , National Indian Gaming Commission, FY 2023 Gross Gaming Revenue Report 4–5 (Jul. 2024), https://www.nigc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ GGR23_Final.pdf.
4
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs