The case related to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which allowed federally recognised tribes to offer certain games like bingo – known as Class II games – in states that “permi[t] such gaming for any purpose by any person, organisation or entity”.
Meanwhile, typical casino games such as blackjack or slot machines may also be offered by a tribe if it negotiates a compact allowing for Class III games to be offered. These negotiations, IGRA mandates, must be “in good faith”.
In 2016, the tribe then began offering electronic bingo, “on the view that IGRA treats bingo as a Class II game for which no state permission is required, so long as the state permits the game to be played on some terms by some persons”.
However, Texas attempted to shut this operation down. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled it could shut down the operation because Texas’ bingo regulations did not permit electronic bingo games similar to those the tribe had offered.
This was then appealed by the tribe, and ultimately considered by the US Supreme Court.
The court noted that Texas acknowledged it did not “prohibit” bingo, and instead allowed it for charitable purposes.
“Instead, the state admits that it allows the game “according to rule[s]” that “fix the time,” place, and manner in which it may be conducted,” it said.
“From this alone, Texas’ bingo laws appear to fall on the regulatory rather than prohibitory side of the line,” it added.
However, the state argued that its rules mean that bingo is prohibited unless it meets certain conditions.
The court, however, rejected this interpretation.
“In Texas’ view, laws regulating gaming activities become laws prohibiting gaming activities—an interpretation that violates the rule against ‘ascribing to one word a meaning so broad’ that it assumes the same meaning as another statutory term,” it said.
The state also pointed to the the Ysleta del Sur and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act of 1987, in which the tribes’ federally recognised status was restored.
This law includes a note, in which the tribe announced its opposition to Texas’ legislative efforts to have its gaming laws apply on tribal lands. In addition, the tribe revealed its intention to prohibit gaming on its reservation.
However, in a 6-3 decision, the court sided with the tribe. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion for the court, with the backing of Sonya Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett.
Gorsuch noted that the case was similar to California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, a 1987 case where the court ruled California “regulated rather than prohibited” bingo. The ruling in this case was ultimately key in the creation of IGRA to define the laws around tribal gaming more clearly.
“For us, that clinches the case,” Gorsuch said. “This court generally assumes that, when Congress enacts statutes, it is aware of this court’s relevant precedents.
“And at the time Congress adopted the Restoration Act, Cabazon was not only a relevant precedent concerning Indian gaming; it was the precedent.”
The court added that this ruling did not give free rein to tribes to offer any games they wished.
“None of this is to say that the Tribe may offer any gaming activity on whatever terms it wishes,” it said. “It is only to say that the Fifth Circuit and Texas have erred in their understanding of the Restoration Act. Under that law’s terms, if a gaming activity is prohibited by Texas law it is also prohibited on tribal land as a matter of federal law.”
Regarding the recognition law, the court said IGRA was in fact “‘in accordance with’ the
Tribe’s resolution choosing not to apply Texas gaming regulations as surrogate federal law on tribal land”.
In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts disagreed with the majority’s ruling. Focusing on the recognition act, he said “the Tribe requested that the pending bill conferring federal trust status be amended to prohibit on the reservation all gambling as defined by Texas law”.
As a result, he said that the case should not be treated like a standard one of prohibition versus regulation.
Original article: https://igamingbusiness.com/us-supreme-curt-texas-tribe/
